On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:23:37AM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> This dump doesn't look dramatically different, either.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Th
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:23:37AM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This dump doesn't look dramatically different, either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The other question is - how is AutoNUMA running when it is not
>> >
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:23:37AM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This dump doesn't look dramatically different, either.
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The other question is - how is AutoNUMA running when it is not enabled?
> >> >>> Shouldn't those _PAGE_NUMA ops be nops when Aut
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:39:32PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 01/22/2014 01:24 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>
> >>The difference between a numa pte and a protnone pte is
> >>the VMA permissions.
> >
> >If that is indeed the only differe
On 23/01/14 16:23, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Steven Noonan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 03:18:50PM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Borkmann
>>> wrote:
On 01/22/2014 08:29 AM, Steven Noonan wrote:
>
> On W
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Steven Noonan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:23:37AM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Steven Noonan wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 03:18:50PM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Bor
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:23:37AM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Steven Noonan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 03:18:50PM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Borkmann
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 01/22/2014 08:29 AM, Steven No
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:27:08PM -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> A user reported a problem starting vsftpd on a Xen paravirtualized
> guest, with this in dmesg:
>
> [ 60.654862] BUG: Bad page map in process vsftpd pte:800493b88165
> pmd:e9cc01067
> [ 60.654876] page:ea00124ee200 coun
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Steven Noonan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 03:18:50PM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Borkmann
>> wrote:
>> > On 01/22/2014 08:29 AM, Steven Noonan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:02:15AM -0500, Konrad Rz
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 03:18:50PM -0500, Elena Ufimtseva wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Borkmann
> wrote:
> > On 01/22/2014 08:29 AM, Steven Noonan wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:02:15AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:20:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 01/22/2014 08:29 AM, Steven Noonan wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:02:15AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:20:45PM -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:47:07PM -0
On 01/22/2014 01:24 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
The difference between a numa pte and a protnone pte is
the VMA permissions.
If that is indeed the only difference, then we should damn well get
rid of that f*cking stupid _PAGE_NUMA name enti
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> The difference between a numa pte and a protnone pte is
> the VMA permissions.
If that is indeed the only difference, then we should damn well get
rid of that f*cking stupid _PAGE_NUMA name entirely.
It's misleading crap. Really. Just do
On 01/21/2014 09:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
Odds are this also shows up in 3.13, right?
Probably. I don't have a Xen PV setup to test with (and very little
interest in setting one up).. And I have a suspicion that it might not
be s
On 01/22/2014 08:29 AM, Steven Noonan wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:02:15AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:20:45PM -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:47:07PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:02:15AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:20:45PM -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:47:07PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > wrote:
>
> Adding extra folks
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 07:20:45PM -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:47:07PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > wrote:
Adding extra folks to the party.
> > >
> > > Odds are this also shows up in 3.13, right?
>
> Reprodu
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:47:07PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> >
> > Odds are this also shows up in 3.13, right?
Reproduced using 3.13 on the PV guest:
[ 368.756763] BUG: Bad page map in process mp pte:8004a67c6165
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> Odds are this also shows up in 3.13, right?
Probably. I don't have a Xen PV setup to test with (and very little
interest in setting one up).. And I have a suspicion that it might not
be so much about Xen PV, as perhaps about the kind
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:27:08PM -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> A user reported a problem starting vsftpd on a Xen paravirtualized
> guest, with this in dmesg:
>
> [ 60.654862] BUG: Bad page map in process vsftpd pte:800493b88165
> pmd:e9cc01067
> [ 60.654876] page:ea00124ee200 coun
A user reported a problem starting vsftpd on a Xen paravirtualized
guest, with this in dmesg:
[ 60.654862] BUG: Bad page map in process vsftpd pte:800493b88165
pmd:e9cc01067
[ 60.654876] page:ea00124ee200 count:0 mapcount:-1 mapping: (null)
index:0x0
[ 60.654879] page flags: 0
21 matches
Mail list logo