On Wed 11-09-13 13:04:33, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > From 888745909da34f8aee8a208a82d467236b828d0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Michal Hocko
> > Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:48:10 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH]
On Wed 11-09-13 13:04:33, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
From 888745909da34f8aee8a208a82d467236b828d0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:48:10 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] vmpressure: fix divide-by-0
k
>
> The patch below. I find it little bit nicer than Hugh's original one
> because having the two checks sounds more confusing.
> What do you think Hugh, Anton?
>
> > or moving the work into its own WQ_NON_REENTRANT queue.
>
> That sounds like an overkill.
>
&
_REENTRANT queue.
That sounds like an overkill.
---
>From 888745909da34f8aee8a208a82d467236b828d0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:48:10 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] vmpressure: fix divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn
Hugh Dickins has reported a division by 0 whe
; ---
> From 888745909da34f8aee8a208a82d467236b828d0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:48:10 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] vmpressure: fix divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn
>
> Hugh Dickins has reported a division by 0 when a vmpressure event is
> proces
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 01:08:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 06-09-13 22:59:16, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr->scanned before
> > taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
>
> As vmpressure_work_fn seems the be
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 01:08:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 06-09-13 22:59:16, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr-scanned before
taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
As vmpressure_work_fn seems the be the only
888745909da34f8aee8a208a82d467236b828d0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:48:10 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] vmpressure: fix divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn
Hugh Dickins has reported a division by 0 when a vmpressure event is
processed. The reason
Subject: [PATCH] vmpressure: fix divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn
Hugh Dickins has reported a division by 0 when a vmpressure event is
processed. The reason for the exception is that a single vmpressure
work item (which is per memcg) might be processed by multiple CPUs
because it is enqueued
:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:48:10 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] vmpressure: fix divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn
Hugh Dickins has reported a division by 0 when a vmpressure event is
processed. The reason for the exception is that a single vmpressure
work
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:59:16PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr->scanned before
> taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Hm... Just trying to
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:59:16PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr-scanned before
taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Hm... Just trying
On Fri 06-09-13 22:59:16, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr->scanned before
> taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
As vmpressure_work_fn seems the be the only place where we set scanned
to 0 (except for the rare occasion
On Fri 06-09-13 22:59:16, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr-scanned before
taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
As vmpressure_work_fn seems the be the only place where we set scanned
to 0 (except for the rare occasion when
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr->scanned before
> taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: David Rientjes
--
To unsubscribe from
Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr->scanned before
taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
---
mm/vmpressure.c |3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
--- 3.11/mm/vmpressure.c
Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr-scanned before
taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
---
mm/vmpressure.c |3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
---
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Hit divide-by-0 in vmpressure_work_fn(): checking vmpr-scanned before
taking the lock is not enough, we must check scanned afterwards too.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: David Rientjes
18 matches
Mail list logo