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
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
>>> swi
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:
>>
>> Th
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
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
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 wit
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
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 (that's
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 protect
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;
>>> curre
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;
>>
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
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 wr
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 wr
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 wr
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:
>
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 wr
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:
>>
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
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 w
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
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
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.
> Sho
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 re
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 fr
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 fr
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 whil
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
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
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 fi
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 Chanteperd
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:
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
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 trac
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 kern
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:
> >
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 (SMP/PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY), but the same happens with
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.
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.
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
>>
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
>>
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)
> :|
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
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.
_
44 matches
Mail list logo