On 11.10.19 02:50, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:11:25AM +, Horiguchi Naoya(堀口 直也) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:30:01AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 09.10.19 11:57, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
Hi David,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:12:04AM +0200, David Hildenbrand
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:11:25AM +, Horiguchi Naoya(堀口 直也) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:30:01AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 09.10.19 11:57, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:12:04AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >> There are
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:30:01AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.10.19 11:57, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:12:04AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> There are various places where we access uninitialized memmaps, namely:
> >> - /proc/kpagecou
On 09.10.19 11:57, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:12:04AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> There are various places where we access uninitialized memmaps, namely:
>> - /proc/kpagecount
>> - /proc/kpageflags
>> - /proc/kpagecgroup
>> - memory_failure() - which r
On 09.10.19 15:29, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 09-10-19 15:24:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 09.10.19 15:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 09-10-19 14:58:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> [...]
I would be fine with this, but it means that - for now - the three
/proc/ files won't be a
On Wed 09-10-19 15:24:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.10.19 15:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 09-10-19 14:58:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I would be fine with this, but it means that - for now - the three
> >> /proc/ files won't be able to deal with ZONE_DEVICE memory.
> >
On 09.10.19 15:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 09-10-19 14:58:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
>> I would be fine with this, but it means that - for now - the three
>> /proc/ files won't be able to deal with ZONE_DEVICE memory.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Is this an actual problem thoug
On Wed 09-10-19 14:58:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> I would be fine with this, but it means that - for now - the three
> /proc/ files won't be able to deal with ZONE_DEVICE memory.
Thanks for the clarification. Is this an actual problem though? Do we
have any consumers of the functionality?
On 09.10.19 13:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 09-10-19 12:19:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
>>> pfn_to_online_page makes sense because offline pages are not really in a
>>> defined state. This would be worth a patch of its own. I remember there
>>
>> The issue is, once I check for pfn_to_on
On Wed 09-10-19 12:19:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> > pfn_to_online_page makes sense because offline pages are not really in a
> > defined state. This would be worth a patch of its own. I remember there
>
> The issue is, once I check for pfn_to_online_page(), these functions
> can't handle
On 09.10.19 11:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 09-10-19 11:12:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> There are various places where we access uninitialized memmaps, namely:
>> - /proc/kpagecount
>> - /proc/kpageflags
>> - /proc/kpagecgroup
>> - memory_failure() - which reuses stable_page_flags() from fs/
Hi David,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:12:04AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> There are various places where we access uninitialized memmaps, namely:
> - /proc/kpagecount
> - /proc/kpageflags
> - /proc/kpagecgroup
> - memory_failure() - which reuses stable_page_flags() from fs/proc/page.c
Ah rig
On Wed 09-10-19 11:12:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> There are various places where we access uninitialized memmaps, namely:
> - /proc/kpagecount
> - /proc/kpageflags
> - /proc/kpagecgroup
> - memory_failure() - which reuses stable_page_flags() from fs/proc/page.c
>
> We have initialized memmaps e
13 matches
Mail list logo