kernel.org, VMware Inc ,
linux-snps-...@lists.infradead.org, mgor...@suse.de,
jacob.jun@linux.intel.com, Arnd Bergmann ,
ulli.kr...@googlemail.com, vgu...@kernel.org, linux-...@vger.kernel.org,
j...@joshtriplett.org, rost...@goodmis.org, r...@vger.kernel.org, Borislav
Petkov , bc...@quicin
On 12/08/2014 09:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 14:27:01 +1100
> Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
>> I have a busy ppc64le KVM box where guests sometimes hit the infamous
>> "kernel BUG at kernel/smpboot.c:134!" issue during boot:
>>
>> BUG_ON(td->cpu != smp_processor_id());
>>
>> Bas
Hi,
I'm curious about what will it happen when alloc_pages_node(memoryless_node).
If the memory is allocated from the most preferable node for the
@memoryless_node,
why we need to bother and use cpu_to_mem() in the caller site?
If not, why the memory allocation subsystem refuses to find a prefe
At the point of up_out label in kvmppc_hv_setup_htab_rma(),
srcu read lock is still held.
We have to release it before return.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti
Cc: Gleb Natapov
Cc: Alexander Graf
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kvm
On 03/03/13 01:06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/02, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>>
>> My version would be slower if it needs to take the
>> slow path in a reentrant way, but I'm not sure it matters either :)
>
> I'd say, this doesn't matter at all, simply because this can only happen
> if we race wit
On 02/03/13 03:47, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 03/01/2013 11:20 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On 28/02/13 05:19, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> On 02/27/2013 06:03 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>>> wrote:
&
On 03/03/13 01:11, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 03/02/2013 06:44 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> From 345a7a75c314ff567be48983e0892bc69c4452e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Lai Jiangshan
>> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:33:14 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] lglock: add read-pre
On 03/03/13 01:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/02, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>
>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>> +{
>> +switch (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
>> +case 1:
>> +
On 02/03/13 02:28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel.
> I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask
> a couple of questions.
>
> This version looks more complex than Michel's, why? Just curious, I
> am trying to understa
>From 345a7a75c314ff567be48983e0892bc69c4452e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:33:14 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
Current lglock is not read-preference, so it can't be used on some cases
which read-preferenc
On 28/02/13 05:19, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 06:03 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/26/2013 09:55 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Srivatsa S.
>From c63f2be9a4cf7106a521dda169a0e14f8e4f7e3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:14:27 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
Current lglock is not read-preference, so it can't be used on some cases
which read-preferenc
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 09:55 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Lai,
>>>
>>> I'm really not convinced that piggy-backing on
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
>
> Hi Lai,
>
> I'm really not convinced that piggy-backing on lglocks would help
> us in any way. But still, let me try to address some of the points
> you raised...
>
> On 02/26/2013 06:29 PM, Lai Jiangshan w
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> Using global rwlocks as the backend for per-CPU rwlocks helps us avoid many
> lock-ordering related problems (unlike per-cpu locks). However, global
> rwlocks lead to unnecessary cache-line bouncing even when there are no
> writers present
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> Hi Lai,
>
> On 02/25/2013 09:23 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Hi, Srivatsa,
>>
>> The target of the whole patchset is nice for me.
>
> Cool! Thanks :-)
>
>> A question: How did you find out the
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 05:47 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Lai,
>>>
>>> On 02/25/2013 09:23 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>>> Hi, S
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> Hi Lai,
>>
>> On 02/25/2013 09:23 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> Hi, Srivatsa,
>>>
>>> The target of the whole patchset is ni
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> Hi Lai,
>
> On 02/25/2013 09:23 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Hi, Srivatsa,
>>
>> The target of the whole patchset is nice for me.
>
> Cool! Thanks :-)
>
>> A question: How did you find out the
untested draft here.
Thanks,
Lai
PS: Some HA tools(I'm writing one) which takes checkpoints of
virtual-machines frequently, I guess this patchset can speedup the
tools.
>From 01db542693a1b7fc6f9ece45d57cb529d9be5b66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013
20 matches
Mail list logo
