On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:36:34 +0100 Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I think the radix 'scan over entire tree' is a bit fragile.
eek, it had better not be. Was this an error in the caller? Hope so.
This
patch adds a parallel hlist for ease of properly browsing the members,
Even
On Thu, Feb 21 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:36:34 +0100 Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I think the radix 'scan over entire tree' is a bit fragile.
eek, it had better not be. Was this an error in the caller? Hope so.
The cfq use of it, not the radix tree
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:29:13 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's odd stuff. Could you perhaps try and add some printks to
block/cfq-iosched.c:call_for_each_cic(), like dumping the 'nr' return
from radix_tree_gang_lookup() and the pointer value of cics[i] in the
for() loop after the
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:36:34 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:29:13 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's odd stuff. Could you perhaps try and add some printks to
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:29:13 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's odd stuff. Could you perhaps try and add some printks to
block/cfq-iosched.c:call_for_each_cic(), like dumping the 'nr' return
from radix_tree_gang_lookup() and the
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:58:38 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when I inserted printk here
==
for (i = 0; i nr; i++)
func(ioc, cics[i]);
printk(%d %lx\n, nr, index);
==
index was always 1 and nr was always 32.
So, cics[31]-key was always NULL when
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:58:38 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when I inserted printk here
==
for (i = 0; i nr; i++)
func(ioc, cics[i]);
printk(%d %lx\n, nr, index);
==
index was always 1 and nr was always
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:36:34 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:29:13 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's odd stuff. Could you perhaps try and
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:36:34 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:29:13 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's odd stuff. Could you perhaps try and
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:36:34 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:29:13 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's odd stuff. Could you perhaps try and add some printks to
On Saturday, 16 of February 2008, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
The softlockup is seen from 2.6.25-rc1-git{1,3} and is visible in the
2.6.24-rc2 kernel,
While booting up with the 2.6.25-rc1-git{1,3} and 2.6.25-rc2 kernel(s) on the
powerbox
Can you update the Bugzilla entry at:
Hi,
The softlockup is seen from 2.6.25-rc1-git{1,3} and is visible in the
2.6.24-rc2 kernel,
While booting up with the 2.6.25-rc1-git{1,3} and 2.6.25-rc2 kernel(s) on the
powerbox
Loading st.ko module
BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 61s! [insmod:379]
NIP: c01b0620 LR:
12 matches
Mail list logo
