Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 00:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe we just ignored sparc64. That usually works for solving these
> > > kind of bugs. 8)
> >
> > heh. iirc, it was demonstrable on x86 also.
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 00:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe we just ignored sparc64. That usually works for solving these
> > kind of bugs. 8)
>
> heh. iirc, it was demonstrable on x86 also.
No. gcc-2.95 on Sparc64 put uninititialized vars i
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 21:48 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:05:32 -0700
> >
> > > Perhaps by uprevving the compiler version?
> >
> > Can't be, we definitely support gcc-2.95 and th
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 21:48 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:05:32 -0700
>
> > Perhaps by uprevving the compiler version?
>
> Can't be, we definitely support gcc-2.95 and that compiler
> definitely has the bug on sparc64.
I belie
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:05:32 -0700
> Perhaps by uprevving the compiler version?
Can't be, we definitely support gcc-2.95 and that compiler
definitely has the bug on sparc64.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
th
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:38:18 -0700
>
> > I'm prety sure we fixed that somehow. But I forget how.
>
> I wish you could remember :-) I honestly don't think we did.
> The DEFINE_PER_CPU() definition still
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:38:18 -0700
> I'm prety sure we fixed that somehow. But I forget how.
I wish you could remember :-) I honestly don't think we did.
The DEFINE_PER_CPU() definition still looks the same, and the
way the .data.percpu section is laye
"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, evicted_pages);
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU() needs an explicit initializer to work
> around some bugs in gcc-2.95, wherein on some platforms
> if you let it end up as a BSS candidate it won't end up
> in the per-cpu section
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> First of all, this is very nice! The code is amazingly easy to read.
Thank you.
> You change the rate of active list scanning, which I suppose won't
> change the current reclaiming behaviour much (at least not on the
> "stress system to death" tests
Hi Rik,
First of all, this is very nice! The code is amazingly easy to read.
Now the usual ranting:
You change the rate of active list scanning, which I suppose won't
change the current reclaiming behaviour much (at least not on the
"stress system to death" tests which most folks use to test pa
From: Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:02:20 -0400
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, evicted_pages);
DEFINE_PER_CPU() needs an explicit initializer to work
around some bugs in gcc-2.95, wherein on some platforms
if you let it end up as a BSS candidate it won't end up
in t
11 matches
Mail list logo
