On Wednesday 19 September 2007 13:36, Christoph Lameter wrote: > If we are in an interrupt context then simply defer the free via a > workqueue. > > In an interrupt context it is not possible to use vmalloc_addr() to > determine the vmalloc address. ...

linux-kernel - Nick Piggin - Sep 18 2007 - 16:36

On Wednesday 19 September 2007 13:36, Christoph Lameter wrote: > If we are in an interrupt context then simply defer the free via a > workqueue. > > In an interrupt context it is not possible to use vmalloc_addr() to > determine the vmalloc address. ...

linux-fsdevel - Nick Piggin - Sep 18 2007 - 16:36

On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:56 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thursday 04 October 2007 05:59:48 Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Peter Zijlstra has recently demonstrated that we can have order 1 allocation > > failures under memory pressure with small memory ...

linux-kernel - Peter Zijlstra - Oct 4 2007 - 08:08

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Removing a virtual mappping *must* be done with interrupts enabled > > since tlb_xx functions are called that rely on interrupts for > > processor to processor communications. > > These things will clash

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Sep 20 2007 - 13:50

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Removing a virtual mappping *must* be done with interrupts enabled > > since tlb_xx functions are called that rely on interrupts for > > processor to processor communications. > > These things will clash

linux-fsdevel - Christoph Lameter - Sep 20 2007 - 13:50

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:17 -0700 Christoph Lameter wrote: > +static noinline void vcompound_free(void *addr) > +{ > + if (in_interrupt()) { Should be (in_interrupt() || irqs_disabled()) ? Regards, -Kame - To

linux-kernel - KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki - Sep 28 2007 - 00:52

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:17 -0700 > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > +static noinline void vcompound_free(void *addr) > > +{ > > + if (in_interrupt()) { > > Should be (

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Sep 28 2007 - 13:35

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:17 -0700 > > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > +static

linux-kernel - KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki - Sep 28 2007 - 19:58

On Thursday 04 October 2007 05:59:48 Christoph Lameter wrote: > Peter Zijlstra has recently demonstrated that we can have order 1 allocation > failures under memory pressure with small memory configurations. The > x86_64 stack has a size of 8k and thus

linux-kernel - Andi Kleen - Oct 4 2007 - 07:56

> The order-1 allocation failures where GFP_ATOMIC, because SLUB uses !0 > order for everything. slub is wrong then. Can it be fixed? > Kernel stack allocation is GFP_KERNEL I presume. Of course. > Also, I use 4k stacks on all my machines

linux-kernel - Andi Kleen - Oct 4 2007 - 08:25

On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 14:25 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > The order-1 allocation failures where GFP_ATOMIC, because SLUB uses !0 > > order for everything. > > slub is wrong then. Can it be fixed? I think mainline slub doesn't do this, just -mm.

linux-kernel - Peter Zijlstra - Oct 4 2007 - 08:30

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > The order-1 allocation failures where GFP_ATOMIC, because SLUB uses !0 > > order for everything. > > slub is wrong then. Can it be fixed? SLUB in mm kernels was using higher order allocations for some

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Oct 4 2007 - 13:40

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > We've known for ages that it is possible. But it has been always so rare > that it was ignored. Well we can now address the rarity. That is the whole point of the patchset. > Is there any evidence this

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Oct 4 2007 - 15:20

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > We've known for ages that it is possible. But it has been always so > > rare that it was ignored. > > Well we can

linux-kernel - Rik van Riel - Oct 4 2007 - 15:39

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Well we can now address the rarity. That is the whole point of the > > patchset. > > Introducing complexity to fight a very rare problem with a good > fallback (refusing to fork more tasks, as well as

linux-kernel - Christoph Lameter - Oct 4 2007 - 17:20

Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:20:50 -0700 (PDT) > Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: >> >>> We've known for ages that it is possible. But it has been always so >>> rare that it was

linux-kernel - Bill Davidsen - Oct 6 2007 - 14:53

On Friday 05 October 2007 07:20, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Well we can now address the rarity. That is the whole point of the > > > patchset. > > > > Introducing complexity to fight a very rare problem

linux-kernel - Nick Piggin - Oct 7 2007 - 03:35

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:17 -0700 Christoph Lameter wrote: > +static noinline void vcompound_free(void *addr) > +{ > + if (in_interrupt()) { Should be (in_interrupt() || irqs_disabled()) ? Regards, -Kame - To

linux-fsdevel - KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki - Sep 28 2007 - 00:52

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:17 -0700 > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > +static noinline void vcompound_free(void *addr) > > +{ > > + if (in_interrupt()) { > > Should be (

linux-fsdevel - Christoph Lameter - Sep 28 2007 - 13:35

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:17 -0700 > > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > +static

linux-fsdevel - KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki - Sep 28 2007 - 19:58