On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 04:08:30PM -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
> Jon Tollefson wrote:
> > David Gibson wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:27PM -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
[snip]
> > I have run through the tests twice now with this new patch using a 4k
> > base page size(and 16G huge p
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:19:27PM -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:27PM -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
> >
> >> David Gibson wrote:
> >>
> >>> When BenH and I were looking at the new code for handling 16G pages,
> >>> we noticed a small bug.
Jon Tollefson wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:27PM -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> David Gibson wrote:
>>>
>>>
When BenH and I were looking at the new code for handling 16G pages,
we noticed a small bug. It doesn't actually bre
David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:27PM -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
>
>> David Gibson wrote:
>>
>>> When BenH and I were looking at the new code for handling 16G pages,
>>> we noticed a small bug. It doesn't actually break anything user
>>> visible, but it's certainly not
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 17:16 -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>
Actually, Jon has been hitting an occasional pagetable lock related
problem. The last theory was that it might be some sort of race but it's
vaguely p
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:27PM -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
> > When BenH and I were looking at the new code for handling 16G pages,
> > we noticed a small bug. It doesn't actually break anything user
> > visible, but it's certainly not the way things are supposed to be.
>
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 17:16 -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> Actually, Jon has been hitting an occasional pagetable lock related
> >> problem. The last theory was that it might be some sort of race but it's
> >> vaguely possible that this is the issue. Jon?
> >>
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> Actually, Jon has been hitting an occasional pagetable lock related
>> problem. The last theory was that it might be some sort of race but it's
>> vaguely possible that this is the issue. Jon?
>>
>
> All hugetlbfs ops should be covered by the big PTL except wal
> Actually, Jon has been hitting an occasional pagetable lock related
> problem. The last theory was that it might be some sort of race but it's
> vaguely possible that this is the issue. Jon?
All hugetlbfs ops should be covered by the big PTL except walking... Can
we have more info about the pro
David Gibson wrote:
> When BenH and I were looking at the new code for handling 16G pages,
> we noticed a small bug. It doesn't actually break anything user
> visible, but it's certainly not the way things are supposed to be.
> The 16G patches didn't update the huge_pte_offset() and
> huge_pte_all
On 02.09.2008 [13:44:42 +0100], Mel Gorman wrote:
> On (02/09/08 15:05), David Gibson didst pronounce:
> > When BenH and I were looking at the new code for handling 16G pages,
> > we noticed a small bug. It doesn't actually break anything user
> > visible, but it's certainly not the way things are
On (02/09/08 15:05), David Gibson didst pronounce:
> When BenH and I were looking at the new code for handling 16G pages,
> we noticed a small bug. It doesn't actually break anything user
> visible, but it's certainly not the way things are supposed to be.
> The 16G patches didn't update the huge_
When BenH and I were looking at the new code for handling 16G pages,
we noticed a small bug. It doesn't actually break anything user
visible, but it's certainly not the way things are supposed to be.
The 16G patches didn't update the huge_pte_offset() and
huge_pte_alloc() functions, which means th
13 matches
Mail list logo
