On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:19:16 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason we present nodes to user space is that we can tell the user
> where the memory is. You seem to try to promote it to some abstract entity
> beyond that, but that doesn't seem particularly fruitful to me. I think
>
On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:08, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:03:46 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:49:41 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:49:41 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This panic(hang) was found by a numa test-set on a system with 3 nodes,
> > where
> > node(2) was memory-less-node.
>
> I still think it's the wrong fix -- just get rid of the memory less node.
> I expect you'll likel
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:03:46 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:49:41 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > This panic(hang) was found by a numa test-set on a system with 3 nodes,
On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:49:41 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > This panic(hang) was found by a numa test-set on a system with 3 nodes,
> > > where
> > > node(2) was memory-less-node.
> >
> > I still think it's the w
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:49:41 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This panic(hang) was found by a numa test-set on a system with 3 nodes,
> > where
> > node(2) was memory-less-node.
>
> I still think it's the wrong fix -- just get rid of the memory less node.
"Let's break it even m
> This panic(hang) was found by a numa test-set on a system with 3 nodes, where
> node(2) was memory-less-node.
I still think it's the wrong fix -- just get rid of the memory less node.
I expect you'll likely run into more problems with that setup anyways.
> static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(in
Hi, This is much easier fix than previous one...
--
following is back trace of NULL pointer access in slab_node().
This patch fix this.
== backtrace from crash (linux-2.6.20) ==
#0 [BSP:e00121f412d8] schedule at a0010061ccc0
#1 [BSP:e00121f41280] rwsem_down_failed_common at a00100
8 matches
Mail list logo