On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 09:17 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 03:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Dec 4, 2016 02:43, "Thorsten Leemhuis"
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > What the status of below patch? From the discussion it looks a
> > lot
On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 03:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2016 02:43, "Thorsten Leemhuis"
> wrote:
>
>
> What the status of below patch? From the discussion it looks a
> lot like
> it was developed to fix a regression in 4.9, but the patch
Lo! On 21.11.2016 14:51, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 05:32 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Oh, this was definitely my intent of course, thanks for noticing this
>> typo ;)
> V2 is fixing this, and brings back NUMA spreading,
> (eg alloc_large_system_hash() done at boot time )
What th
On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 05:51 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> + while (chunk_order) {
> + if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> + page = alloc_pages(multi_alloc_mask,
> chunk_order);
> + else
> + page = a
On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 05:32 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Oh, this was definitely my intent of course, thanks for noticing this
> typo ;)
V2 is fixing this, and brings back NUMA spreading,
(eg alloc_large_system_hash() done at boot time )
lpaa24:~# grep alloc_large /proc/vmallocinfo
0xc9
On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 00:34 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > Another potential issue with CONFIG_VMAP_STACK is that we make no
> > attempt to allocate 4 consecutive pages.
> >
> > Even if we have plenty of memory, 4 calls to alloc_page() are likely to
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Another potential issue with CONFIG_VMAP_STACK is that we make no
> attempt to allocate 4 consecutive pages.
>
> Even if we have plenty of memory, 4 calls to alloc_page() are likely to
> give us 4 pages in completely different locations.
>
> Here I prin
On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 01:35 +, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Umm... One possibility would be something like fs/namespace.c:m_start() -
> if nothing has changed since the last time, just use a cached pointer.
> That has sped the damn thing (/proc/mounts et.al.) big way, but it's
> dependent upon having
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 03:27:07PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > Hosts with ~100,000 threads have an issue with /prov/vmallocinfo
> >
> > It can take about 800 usec to skip over ~100,000 struct vmap_area
> > in s_start(), while holding
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Hosts with ~100,000 threads have an issue with /prov/vmallocinfo
>
> It can take about 800 usec to skip over ~100,000 struct vmap_area
> in s_start(), while holding vmap_area_lock spinlock, and therefore
> blocking fork()/pthread_create().
>
On Sun, 2016-11-20 at 14:05 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That said, nothing particular is bothering me all that much, but we've
> had some of the VMALLOC_STACK fixups continue to trickle in, so I
> worry that we're not quite done there yet. And let's see what
> Thorsten's regression list looks l
for ipv4/ipv6 networks
Linus Torvalds (3):
Revert "printk: make reading the kernel log flush pending lines"
ASoC: lpass-platform: fix uninitialized variable
Linux 4.9-rc6
Linus Walleij (5):
video: ARM CLCD: fix Vexpress regression
i2c: mux: fix up dependenci
12 matches
Mail list logo
