Hi
I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all you
guys. :-/
In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's patch doesn't have
cleaner semantics.
And PeterZ proposed make new cleaner one rather than revert. No need to hassle.
I'm 100% sure -rt people need s
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
The problem that we seem to have is to define what mlocked and pinned mean
and how this relates to RLI
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
>> broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
>
> Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
>
> The problem that we seem to hav
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:40:26PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> > broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
>
> Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
And introduces another
On Sat, 25 May 2013, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> If pinned and mlocked are totally difference intentionally, why IB uses
> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. Why don't IB uses IB specific limit and why only IB raise up
> number of pinned pages and other gup users don't.
> I can't guess IB folk's intent.
True another l
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
> had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
> applied separately to both -- more or less.
Before the patch the count was doubled since a single page was cou
* KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
> you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
> patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All other concerns are
sec
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:37:06PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
> > had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
> > applied separately to both -- more
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
>> had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
>> applied separately to both -- more or less.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Bef
>> I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
>> you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
>> patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
>
> Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All other concerns are
> secondary. What's so difficult to
* KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
> >> you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
> >> patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
> >
> > Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All other concerns ar
* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
> > had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
> > applied separately to both -- more or less.
>
> Before the patch the c
12 matches
Mail list logo
