On 10/21/2013 03:21 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 21-10-13 13:10, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 10/21/2013 12:24 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> op 21-10-13 12:10, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 10/21/2013 11:48 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 21-10-13 11:37, Thomas Hellstrom
op 21-10-13 13:10, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/21/2013 12:24 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> op 21-10-13 12:10, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 10/21/2013 11:48 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
op 21-10-13 11:37, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/21/2013 11:01 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
On 10/21/2013 12:24 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 21-10-13 12:10, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 10/21/2013 11:48 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> op 21-10-13 11:37, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 10/21/2013 11:01 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 21-10-13 10:48, Thomas Hellstrom
op 21-10-13 12:10, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/21/2013 11:48 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> op 21-10-13 11:37, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 10/21/2013 11:01 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
op 21-10-13 10:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> Hi!
>
> As discussed previously the
On 10/21/2013 11:48 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 21-10-13 11:37, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 10/21/2013 11:01 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> op 21-10-13 10:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
Hi!
As discussed previously the current locking order in TTM of these locks is
op 21-10-13 11:37, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/21/2013 11:01 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> op 21-10-13 10:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> As discussed previously the current locking order in TTM of these locks is
>>> bo::reserve -> vm::mmap_sem. This leads to a hack in
>>>
On 10/21/2013 11:01 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 21-10-13 10:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> Hi!
>>
>> As discussed previously the current locking order in TTM of these locks is
>> bo::reserve -> vm::mmap_sem. This leads to a hack in
>> the TTM fault() handle to try and revert the locking
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As discussed previously the current locking order in TTM of these locks is
> bo::reserve -> vm::mmap_sem. This leads to a hack in
> the TTM fault() handle to try and revert the locking order. If a tryreserve
> failed, we tried to
op 21-10-13 10:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> Hi!
>
> As discussed previously the current locking order in TTM of these locks is
> bo::reserve -> vm::mmap_sem. This leads to a hack in
> the TTM fault() handle to try and revert the locking order. If a tryreserve
> failed, we tried to have the vm
Hi!
As discussed previously the current locking order in TTM of these locks
is bo::reserve -> vm::mmap_sem. This leads to a hack in
the TTM fault() handle to try and revert the locking order. If a
tryreserve failed, we tried to have the vm code release the mmap_sem()
and then schedule, to give
10 matches
Mail list logo