On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Not getting hangs is a good sign, but lockdep doesn't like it:
> >
> > [ 460.684901] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 172 at kernel/workqueue.c:2418
> >
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 06:48:58PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Not getting hangs is a good sign, but lockdep doesn't like it:
> >
> > [ 460.684901] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 172 at kernel/workqueue.c:2418
> >
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Not getting hangs is a good sign, but lockdep doesn't like it:
>
> [ 460.684901] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 172 at kernel/workqueue.c:2418
> check_flush_dependency+0x92/0x130
> [ 460.684924] workqueue: PF_MEMALLOC task 172(kworker/1:1H)
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Not getting hangs is a good sign, but lockdep doesn't like it:
>
> [ 460.684901] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 172 at kernel/workqueue.c:2418
> check_flush_dependency+0x92/0x130
> [ 460.684924] workqueue: PF_MEMALLOC task 172(kworker/1:1H)
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 03:06:00PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:02:11AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:23:44AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > Waiting a RCU grace period only guarantees the work gets queued, but
> > > until after the
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 03:06:00PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:02:11AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:23:44AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > Waiting a RCU grace period only guarantees the work gets queued, but
> > > until after the
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:02:11AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:23:44AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Waiting a RCU grace period only guarantees the work gets queued, but
> > until after the queued workqueue returns, there's no guarantee the
> > memory was actually
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:02:11AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:23:44AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Waiting a RCU grace period only guarantees the work gets queued, but
> > until after the queued workqueue returns, there's no guarantee the
> > memory was actually
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:23:44AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Waiting a RCU grace period only guarantees the work gets queued, but
> until after the queued workqueue returns, there's no guarantee the
> memory was actually freed. So flush the work to provide better
> guarantees to the reclaim
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:23:44AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Waiting a RCU grace period only guarantees the work gets queued, but
> until after the queued workqueue returns, there's no guarantee the
> memory was actually freed. So flush the work to provide better
> guarantees to the reclaim
Waiting a RCU grace period only guarantees the work gets queued, but
until after the queued workqueue returns, there's no guarantee the
memory was actually freed. So flush the work to provide better
guarantees to the reclaim code in addition of waiting a RCU grace
period to pass.
Signed-off-by:
Waiting a RCU grace period only guarantees the work gets queued, but
until after the queued workqueue returns, there's no guarantee the
memory was actually freed. So flush the work to provide better
guarantees to the reclaim code in addition of waiting a RCU grace
period to pass.
Signed-off-by:
12 matches
Mail list logo