On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Roger Larsson wrote:
>
> > I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
>
> lru_list_lock != pagemap_lru_lock
>
btw, while we are at it, I am not able to reproduce this with test10-pre5
but am still running tests
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Roger Larsson wrote:
> I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
lru_list_lock != pagemap_lru_lock
cheers,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Roger Larsson wrote:
I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
lru_list_lock != pagemap_lru_lock
cheers,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Roger Larsson wrote:
I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
lru_list_lock != pagemap_lru_lock
btw, while we are at it, I am not able to reproduce this with test10-pre5
but am still running tests with
Not.
It does not lock anything else...
This was not a problem.
/RogerL
Roger Larsson wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> Please ignore my patch suggestion from getblk -
> it will give problems later - in alloc...
>
> It is grow_buffers that might need to lock the
> other ones too...
>
> /RogerL
>
>
Hi again,
Please ignore my patch suggestion from getblk -
it will give problems later - in alloc...
It is grow_buffers that might need to lock the
other ones too...
/RogerL
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Found a strange one.
getblk releases hash_table_lock and lru_list_lock
before calling refill_freelist that calls grow_buffers
that locks free_list[].lock
- lru_lock and hash_table_lock not held, violating
deadlock prevention rules in beginning of file.
patch.
in getblk move the call to
Hi,
I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
Then it tries to lock some others - maybe one of the other treads
got one of those (hash_table_lock, free_list[index].lock)
It fits with that proc 4 it executes in the beginning of
try_to_free_buffers, does it move?
Or is it stuck at
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> When running SPEC SFS tests against 2.4.0-test10-pre4 on a 4-way SMP
> machine with 6G RAM (highmem+PAE enabled) I got
>
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.
>
> (probably coming from nfsd, why don't we print eip of the caller there?)
>
> and
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
Hi guys,
When running SPEC SFS tests against 2.4.0-test10-pre4 on a 4-way SMP
machine with 6G RAM (highmem+PAE enabled) I got
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.
(probably coming from nfsd, why don't we print eip of the caller there?)
and the machine
Hi,
I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
Then it tries to lock some others - maybe one of the other treads
got one of those (hash_table_lock, free_list[index].lock)
It fits with that proc 4 it executes in the beginning of
try_to_free_buffers, does it move?
Or is it stuck at
Found a strange one.
getblk releases hash_table_lock and lru_list_lock
before calling refill_freelist that calls grow_buffers
that locks free_list[].lock
- lru_lock and hash_table_lock not held, violating
deadlock prevention rules in beginning of file.
patch.
in getblk move the call to
Hi again,
Please ignore my patch suggestion from getblk -
it will give problems later - in alloc...
It is grow_buffers that might need to lock the
other ones too...
/RogerL
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Not.
It does not lock anything else...
This was not a problem.
/RogerL
Roger Larsson wrote:
Hi again,
Please ignore my patch suggestion from getblk -
it will give problems later - in alloc...
It is grow_buffers that might need to lock the
other ones too...
/RogerL
--
Home
14 matches
Mail list logo
