On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:20:02AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 12:32 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:49:46AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2017 07:30 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:20:02AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 12:32 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:49:46AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2017 07:30 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>
On 10/23/2017 12:32 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:49:46AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 10/19/2017 07:30 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you for addressing this. The patch itself looks good to
On 10/23/2017 12:32 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:49:46AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 10/19/2017 07:30 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you for addressing this. The patch itself looks good to
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:49:46AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 10/19/2017 07:30 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for addressing this. The patch itself looks good to me, but
> > the reported issue (negative reserve
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:49:46AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 10/19/2017 07:30 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for addressing this. The patch itself looks good to me, but
> > the reported issue (negative reserve
On 10/19/2017 07:30 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>
> Thank you for addressing this. The patch itself looks good to me, but
> the reported issue (negative reserve count) doesn't reproduce in my trial
> with v4.14-rc5, so could you share
On 10/19/2017 07:30 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>
> Thank you for addressing this. The patch itself looks good to me, but
> the reported issue (negative reserve count) doesn't reproduce in my trial
> with v4.14-rc5, so could you share
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Calling madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) on a hugetlbfs page will result in
> bad (negative) reserved huge page counts. This may not happen
> immediately, but may happen later when the underlying file is
> removed or filesystem unmounted. For
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Calling madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) on a hugetlbfs page will result in
> bad (negative) reserved huge page counts. This may not happen
> immediately, but may happen later when the underlying file is
> removed or filesystem unmounted. For
Calling madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) on a hugetlbfs page will result in
bad (negative) reserved huge page counts. This may not happen
immediately, but may happen later when the underlying file is
removed or filesystem unmounted. For example:
AnonHugePages: 0 kB
ShmemHugePages:0 kB
Calling madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) on a hugetlbfs page will result in
bad (negative) reserved huge page counts. This may not happen
immediately, but may happen later when the underlying file is
removed or filesystem unmounted. For example:
AnonHugePages: 0 kB
ShmemHugePages:0 kB
12 matches
Mail list logo
