On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 08:54:02AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 15:45 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 09:51:35AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 15:42 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:34:41PM +, Adam Li
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 Mon, 2008-09-01 at 15:45 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 09:51:35AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 15:42 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:34:41PM +, Adam Litke wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Hrm. Something about the structure of all
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_
