Hello,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 09:50:24AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So IIUC, existing mempool implementation is not directly usable for my
> requirement and I need to write some code of my own for the caching
> layer which always allocates objects from reserve and fills in the
> pool asynchronou
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:56:35PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Vivek.
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:27:17PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Ok, that's good to know. If per cpu allocator can support this use case,
> > it will be good for 3.3 onwards. This seems to be right way to go to fix
> >
On 2011-12-19 19:27, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I think reverting the previous series is not going to be simple either. It
> had 13 patches.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/19/560
>
> By making stats per cpu, I was able to reduce contention on request
> queue lock. Now we shall have to bring the lock
Hello, Vivek.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:27:17PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Ok, that's good to know. If per cpu allocator can support this use case,
> it will be good for 3.3 onwards. This seems to be right way to go to fix
> the problem.
Ummm... if we're gonna make percpu usable w/ GFP_NOIO, th
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:35:19AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:27:17PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:25:48PM -0600, Nate Custer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dec 16, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > Thanks for testing it Nate. I did some debu
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:27:17PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:25:48PM -0600, Nate Custer wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 16, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > Thanks for testing it Nate. I did some debugging and found out that patch
> > > is doing double free on per cpu
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:25:48PM -0600, Nate Custer wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Thanks for testing it Nate. I did some debugging and found out that patch
> > is doing double free on per cpu pointer hence the crash you are running
> > into. I could reproduce thi
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:25:48PM -0600, Nate Custer wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Thanks for testing it Nate. I did some debugging and found out that patch
> > is doing double free on per cpu pointer hence the crash you are running
> > into. I could reproduce thi
On Dec 16, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Thanks for testing it Nate. I did some debugging and found out that patch
> is doing double free on per cpu pointer hence the crash you are running
> into. I could reproduce this problem on my box. It is just a matter of
> doing rmdir on the blkio
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:43:52PM -0600, Nate Custer wrote:
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Ok, I continued to develop on the patch which tries to allocate per cpu
> > stats from worker thread context. Here is the patch.
> >
> > Can the reporter please try out the patch a
On Dec 15, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Ok, I continued to develop on the patch which tries to allocate per cpu
> stats from worker thread context. Here is the patch.
>
> Can the reporter please try out the patch and see if it helps. I am not
> sure if deadlock was because of mutex issu
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:03:54PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-12-14 14:43, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 12/14/2011 02:25 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:48:16PM -0600, Nate Custer wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I am struggling with repeatable full hardware locks when
12 matches
Mail list logo
