* KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
> >> you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
> >> patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
> >
> > Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All other concerns
* KOSAKI Motohiro kosaki.motoh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> index a841123..f8f47dc 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> @@ -137,17 +137,22 @@ struct ib_umem *ib_umem_get (struct ib_ucontext
> *context, unsigned long addr,
>
>
>> I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
>> you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
>> patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
>
> Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All other concerns are
> secondary. What's so difficult to
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
>> had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
>> applied separately to both -- more or less.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:37:06PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
> > had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
> > applied separately to both --
* KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
> you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
> patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All other concerns are
* KOSAKI Motohiro kosaki.motoh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:37:06PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
applied separately to both -- more or
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
applied separately to both -- more or less.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com
I'm unhappy you guys uses offensive word so much. Please cool down all
you guys. :-/ In fact, _BOTH_ the behavior before and after Cristoph's
patch doesn't have cleaner semantics.
Erm, this feature _regressed_ after the patch. All other concerns are
secondary. What's so difficult to
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
index a841123..f8f47dc 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
@@ -137,17 +137,22 @@ struct ib_umem *ib_umem_get (struct ib_ucontext
*context, unsigned long addr,
* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
> > had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
> > applied separately to both -- more or less.
>
> Before the patch the
* Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
applied separately to both -- more or less.
Before the patch
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
> had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
> applied separately to both -- more or less.
Before the patch the count was doubled since a single page was
On Sat, 25 May 2013, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> If pinned and mlocked are totally difference intentionally, why IB uses
> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. Why don't IB uses IB specific limit and why only IB raise up
> number of pinned pages and other gup users don't.
> I can't guess IB folk's intent.
True another
On Sat, 25 May 2013, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
If pinned and mlocked are totally difference intentionally, why IB uses
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. Why don't IB uses IB specific limit and why only IB raise up
number of pinned pages and other gup users don't.
I can't guess IB folk's intent.
True another
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Before your patch pinned was included in locked and thus RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
had a single resource counter. After your patch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is
applied separately to both -- more or less.
Before the patch the count was doubled since a single page was
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:40:26PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> > broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
>
> Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
And introduces another
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:40:26PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Patch bc3e53f682 (mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages)
broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
And introduces another problem
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
>> broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
>
> Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
>
> The problem that we seem to
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Patch bc3e53f682 (mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages)
broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
The problem that we seem to
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
The problem that we seem to have is to define what mlocked and pinned mean
and how this relates to
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Patch bc3e53f682 (mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages)
broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
Nope the patch fixed a problem with double accounting.
The problem that we seem to have is to define what mlocked and pinned mean
and how this relates to
24 matches
Mail list logo
