> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:20:06 -0600 Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
>
> The second seems to make more sense. I tested with the first last
> night which didn't help.
>
> With the proper patch in place things look
Not that it'll help much: the VM calls throttle_vm_writeout()
for GFP_NOIO
and GFP_NOFS allocations, which is a bug. Because if the caller
holds
locks which prevent filesystem or IO progress, we deadlock.
I'll fix the VM if someone else fixes USB ;)
What else needs to be fixed?
Would be
Not that it'll help much: the VM calls throttle_vm_writeout()
for GFP_NOIO
and GFP_NOFS allocations, which is a bug. Because if the caller
holds
locks which prevent filesystem or IO progress, we deadlock.
I'll fix the VM if someone else fixes USB ;)
What else needs to be fixed?
Would be
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:20:06 -0600 Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ if ((gfp_mask (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
The second seems to make more sense. I tested with the first last
night which didn't help.
With the proper patch in place things look good. Is
On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should remove some
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
>
> Is that really the correct test? I don't know enough about the memory
> management subsystem to say one way or the other. What's special
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
> Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > > It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
> > > > > Ideas?
> > > >
> > > > It
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > > It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
> > > > Ideas?
> > >
> > > It seems usb-storage should remove some kmalloc and use mempool()
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
> > > Ideas?
> >
> > It seems usb-storage should remove some kmalloc and use mempool() for
> > urb... Is someone working on this? And idea?
>
> I think Pete said that we're
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should remove some kmalloc and use mempool() for
urb... Is someone working on this? And idea?
I think Pete said that we're supposed to be
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should remove some kmalloc and use mempool() for
urb... Is
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ if ((gfp_mask (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
Is that really the correct test? I don't know enough about the memory
management subsystem to say one way or the other. What's special about
On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should remove some
14 matches
Mail list logo
