Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:15 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged > > > > > them > > > > > for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? > > > > > > > > I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 > > > > gets released? > > > > If so, then that would be fine with me. > > > > > > um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable > > > backport. > > > > > > We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons? > > > > Heiko's patches should also fix > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319244 as reported > > by Stefan Bader. I've pinged them to determine if there is any other > > issues with -mm. > > The other distribution where this has been seen was RHEL7 (on s390). > > FWIW, I thought there was a 'rule' that patches with a -stable tag shouldn't > stay in -next for a couple of rc releases. But then again that probably was > just a discussion somewhere. > Anyway, if neither Stefan or Ian speak up I'm fine with post 3.16 as well. > It's very much up to Andrew, of course. I would like to see this go in sooner rather than later, if possible, due to the potential RHEL-7 disruption it can cause. More so now the above shows we can see this on other architectures and higher speced machines. Looking at the patches it appears there's no change from the original semantics. So the potential for regression is fairly low now since Heiko's patches are much simpler than the original proposal and are much more straight forward to review, so much so that they make sense even to me! Ian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them > > > > for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? > > > > > > I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 > > > gets released? > > > If so, then that would be fine with me. > > > > um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable backport. > > > > We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons? > > Heiko's patches should also fix > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319244 as reported > by Stefan Bader. I've pinged them to determine if there is any other > issues with -mm. The other distribution where this has been seen was RHEL7 (on s390). FWIW, I thought there was a 'rule' that patches with a -stable tag shouldn't stay in -next for a couple of rc releases. But then again that probably was just a discussion somewhere. Anyway, if neither Stefan or Ian speak up I'm fine with post 3.16 as well. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 gets released? If so, then that would be fine with me. um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable backport. We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons? Heiko's patches should also fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319244 as reported by Stefan Bader. I've pinged them to determine if there is any other issues with -mm. The other distribution where this has been seen was RHEL7 (on s390). FWIW, I thought there was a 'rule' that patches with a -stable tag shouldn't stay in -next for a couple of rc releases. But then again that probably was just a discussion somewhere. Anyway, if neither Stefan or Ian speak up I'm fine with post 3.16 as well. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:15 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 gets released? If so, then that would be fine with me. um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable backport. We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons? Heiko's patches should also fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319244 as reported by Stefan Bader. I've pinged them to determine if there is any other issues with -mm. The other distribution where this has been seen was RHEL7 (on s390). FWIW, I thought there was a 'rule' that patches with a -stable tag shouldn't stay in -next for a couple of rc releases. But then again that probably was just a discussion somewhere. Anyway, if neither Stefan or Ian speak up I'm fine with post 3.16 as well. It's very much up to Andrew, of course. I would like to see this go in sooner rather than later, if possible, due to the potential RHEL-7 disruption it can cause. More so now the above shows we can see this on other architectures and higher speced machines. Looking at the patches it appears there's no change from the original semantics. So the potential for regression is fairly low now since Heiko's patches are much simpler than the original proposal and are much more straight forward to review, so much so that they make sense even to me! Ian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens > > > wrote: > > > > > > > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory > > > > allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. > > > > The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. > > > > > > > > To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to > > > > fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory > > > > is fragmented. > > > > > > > > This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing > > > > /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it "fixes" other users as well, > > > > which use seq_file's single_open() interface. > > > > > > Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective. > > > > > > I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them > > > for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? > > > > I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 > > gets released? > > If so, then that would be fine with me. > > um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable backport. > > We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons? > Heiko's patches should also fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319244 as reported by Stefan Bader. I've pinged them to determine if there is any other issues with -mm. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory is fragmented. This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it fixes other users as well, which use seq_file's single_open() interface. Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective. I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 gets released? If so, then that would be fine with me. um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable backport. We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons? Heiko's patches should also fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1319244 as reported by Stefan Bader. I've pinged them to determine if there is any other issues with -mm. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens > > wrote: > > > > > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory > > > allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. > > > The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. > > > > > > To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to > > > fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory > > > is fragmented. > > > > > > This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing > > > /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it "fixes" other users as well, > > > which use seq_file's single_open() interface. > > > > Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective. > > > > I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them > > for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? > > I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 > gets released? > If so, then that would be fine with me. um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable backport. We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory is fragmented. This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it fixes other users as well, which use seq_file's single_open() interface. Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective. I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 gets released? If so, then that would be fine with me. um, actually, no, sorry, I meant merge for 3.17-rc1 with a -stable backport. We can do 3.16 of course, but for what reasons? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens > wrote: > > > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory > > allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. > > The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. > > > > To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to > > fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory > > is fragmented. > > > > This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing > > /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it "fixes" other users as well, > > which use seq_file's single_open() interface. > > Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective. > > I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them > for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 gets released? If so, then that would be fine with me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory is fragmented. This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it fixes other users as well, which use seq_file's single_open() interface. Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective. I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? I assume tagged for 3.16 means you intend to get it merged before 3.16 gets released? If so, then that would be fine with me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens wrote: > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory > allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. > The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. > > To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to > fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory > is fragmented. > > This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing > /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it "fixes" other users as well, > which use seq_file's single_open() interface. Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective. I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory is fragmented. This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it fixes other users as well, which use seq_file's single_open() interface. Yes, those changes look pretty simple and effective. I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I semi-randomly tagged them for 3.16 with a -stable backport, but that could be changed? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory is fragmented. This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it "fixes" other users as well, which use seq_file's single_open() interface. Heiko Carstens (2): proc/stat: convert to single_open_size() fs/seq_file: fallback to vmalloc allocation fs/proc/stat.c | 22 ++ fs/seq_file.c | 30 +- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) -- 1.8.5.5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also work if memory is fragmented. This approach seems to be simpler and less intrusive than changing /proc/stat to use an interator. Also it fixes other users as well, which use seq_file's single_open() interface. Heiko Carstens (2): proc/stat: convert to single_open_size() fs/seq_file: fallback to vmalloc allocation fs/proc/stat.c | 22 ++ fs/seq_file.c | 30 +- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) -- 1.8.5.5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
