On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 01:14:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I intended to say nr_node_ids, the same size as buffers such as the
> > task_numa_buffers. If we ever return a nid > nr_node_ids here then
> > task_numa_fault would corrupt memory. However, it should be possible for
> >
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:56:57AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > I thought it was, we crashed somewhere suspiciously close, but no. You
> > need shared mpols for this to actually trigger and the NUMA stuff
> > doesn't use that.
> >
>
> Ah, so this is a red herring?
Yeah, but I still think its an
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:28:29AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > So I think this patch is
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index 7431001..ae880c3 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -1755,22 +1755,24 @@ unsigned slab_node(void)
> > }
> >
> > /* Do static interleaving for
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:28:29AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So I think this patch is broken (still).
>
> I am assuming the lack of complaints is that it is
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So I think this patch is broken (still).
I am assuming the lack of complaints is that it is not a heavily executed
path. I expect that you (and Rik) are hitting
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I think this patch is broken (still).
I am assuming the lack of complaints is that it is not a heavily executed
path. I expect that you (and Rik) are hitting this
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:28:29AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I think this patch is broken (still).
I am assuming the lack of complaints is that it is not a
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 7431001..ae880c3 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1755,22 +1755,24 @@ unsigned slab_node(void)
}
/* Do static interleaving for a VMA with known
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:43:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:28:29AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I think this patch is broken
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:56:57AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
I thought it was, we crashed somewhere suspiciously close, but no. You
need shared mpols for this to actually trigger and the NUMA stuff
doesn't use that.
Ah, so this is a red herring?
Yeah, but I still think its an actual
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 01:14:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I intended to say nr_node_ids, the same size as buffers such as the
task_numa_buffers. If we ever return a nid nr_node_ids here then
task_numa_fault would corrupt memory. However, it should be possible for
node_weight to
On 08/23/2013 02:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I guess the quick and ugly solution is something like the below.
This still crashes :)
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1762,19 +1762,21 @@ unsigned slab_node(void)
> static unsigned offset_il_node(struct mempolicy *pol,
>
On 08/23/2013 02:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I guess the quick and ugly solution is something like the below.
This still crashes :)
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1762,19 +1762,21 @@ unsigned slab_node(void)
static unsigned offset_il_node(struct mempolicy *pol,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I think this patch is broken (still). Suppose we have an
> INTERLEAVE mempol like 0x3 and change it to 0xc.
>
> Original: 0x3
> Rebind Step 1:0xf /* set bits */
> Rebind Step 2:0xc /* clear bits */
>
> Now
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:08:52PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 06b145f..013d981 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1843,18 +1843,24 @@ struct page *
> alloc_pages_vma(gfp_t gfp, int order, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:08:52PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 06b145f..013d981 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1843,18 +1843,24 @@ struct page *
alloc_pages_vma(gfp_t gfp, int order, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I think this patch is broken (still). Suppose we have an
INTERLEAVE mempol like 0x3 and change it to 0xc.
Original: 0x3
Rebind Step 1:0xf /* set bits */
Rebind Step 2:0xc /* clear bits */
Now look at
18 matches
Mail list logo
