Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
this is now basically the patch which seems to stabilized x86 /wrt mmu
switches again:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
this is now basically the patch which seems to stabilized x86 /wrt mmu
switches again:
There were 3 race windows between
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
this is now basically the patch which seems to stabilized x86 /wrt mmu
switches again:
There were 3 race windows between setting active_mm of the current task
and actually switching it
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
this is now basically the patch which seems to stabilized x86 /wrt mmu
switches again:
There were 3 race windows between setting active_mm
Hi again,
this is now basically the patch which seems to stabilized x86 /wrt mmu
switches again:
There were 3 race windows between setting active_mm of the current task
and actually switching it (that's a noarch issue), there were several
calls into switch_mm without proper hard interrupt
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
this is now basically the patch which seems to stabilized x86 /wrt mmu
switches again:
There were 3 race windows between setting active_mm of the current task
and actually switching it (that's a noarch issue), there were several
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
this is now basically the patch which seems to stabilized x86 /wrt mmu
switches again:
There were 3 race windows between setting active_mm of the current task
and actually switching it (that's a noarch issue), there were several
calls into switch_mm without
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 20:15 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:56 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 20:15 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:56 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 20:56 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:56 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On archs with non-atomic switch_mm(), use_mm() will require a different
strategy. I'm thinking about something like
use_mm():
set_some_flag();
barrier();
current-mm = new_mm;
current-active_mm = new_mm;
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
On archs with non-atomic switch_mm(), use_mm() will require a different
strategy. I'm thinking about something like
use_mm():
set_some_flag();
barrier();
current-mm = new_mm;
current-active_mm = new_mm;
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but the
test system that can produce this is highly contended.
Short update: Further instrumentation revealed that cr3 differs from
active_mm-pgd while we are looping over that fault, ie. the kernel
tries to
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but the
test system that can produce this is highly contended.
Short update: Further instrumentation revealed that cr3 differs from
active_mm-pgd while we are looping over that fault, ie.
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but the
test system that can produce this is highly contended.
Short update: Further instrumentation revealed that cr3 differs from
active_mm-pgd while we are
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but the
test system that can produce this is highly contended.
Short update: Further instrumentation revealed that cr3 differs from
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but the
test system that can produce this is highly contended.
Short update: Further instrumentation revealed that cr3 differs from
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but the
test system that can produce this is highly contended.
Short update: Further instrumentation revealed that cr3 differs
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but the
test system that can produce this is highly contended.
Short update: Further
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but the
test system that can produce this is highly contended.
Short update:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging, but
the
test system that can produce this is highly
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:56 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
It's still unclear what goes on precisely, we are still digging,
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 20:15 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:56 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 20:15 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:56 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
with ipipe-2.3-01 (SMP/PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), but the same happens with
2.6.29.5/2.3-03:
:| +func-6530.084 __ipipe_handle_exception+0x11
(page_fault+0x26)
:| +func
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
with ipipe-2.3-01 (SMP/PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), but the same happens with
2.6.29.5/2.3-03:
:| +func-6530.084 __ipipe_handle_exception+0x11
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
with ipipe-2.3-01 (SMP/PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), but the same happens with
2.6.29.5/2.3-03:
:| +func-6530.084
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
with ipipe-2.3-01 (SMP/PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), but the same happens with
2.6.29.5/2.3-03:
:| +func-6530.084
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 10:42 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
with ipipe-2.3-01 (SMP/PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), but the same happens with
2.6.29.5/2.3-03:
:| +func
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 11:21 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 10:42 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
with ipipe-2.3-01
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 11:21 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 10:42 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 11:26 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 11:21 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 10:42 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 11:26 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 11:21 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 10:42 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 11:26 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 11:21 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 10:42 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 19:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
with ipipe-2.3-01 (SMP/PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), but the same happens with
2.6.29.5/2.3-03:
Do you mean 2.6.29.5/2.4-03?
--
Philippe.
Philippe Gerum wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 19:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
seen such loops before? This particular trace is from a 2.6.29.3 kernel
with ipipe-2.3-01 (SMP/PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), but the same happens with
2.6.29.5/2.3-03:
Do you mean 2.6.29.5/2.4-03?
No, in fact I
36 matches
Mail list logo