On 06/08, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Will Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:19:18 -0500
> >> Will Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
> >> >
Will Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:19:18 -0500
>> Will Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
>> >
>
>> In fact, it's probably the case that rcu_read_lo
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:19:18 -0500
> Will Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
> >
> In fact, it's probably the case that rcu_read_lock() is now sufficient
> locking coverage for zap_o
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:19:18 -0500
Will Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
>
> Yup, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.
>
> > > >
> > > > If we're going to do this then we should probably create some new
> > > > function
> > > > (wit
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 17:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:16:21 -0500
> Anton Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
Yup, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.
> > >
> > > If we're going to do this
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:16:21 -0500
Anton Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
> >
> > If we're going to do this then we should probably create some new function
> > (with a better name) which takes tasklsit_lock and then calls
> > zap_ot
Hi,
> zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
>
> If we're going to do this then we should probably create some new function
> (with a better name) which takes tasklsit_lock and then calls
> zap_other_threads().
>
> Does this patch fix any observed-in-the-real-world problem? If so, please
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:48:32 -0500
Will Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When we get into a state where VM has ran out of memory, and it's time to
> thwack a process, we should take out the entire process group, rather than
> just one thread.
>
> Tested on i386
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Sc
When we get into a state where VM has ran out of memory, and it's time to
thwack a process, we should take out the entire process group, rather than
just one thread.
Tested on i386
Signed-off-by: Will Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/i386/mm/fault.c |4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 inserti
9 matches
Mail list logo