Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix

2000-09-22 Thread Martin Diehl
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > I've found and fixed the deadlocks in the new VM. They turned out > to be single-cpu only bugs, which explains why they didn't crash my > SMP tesnt box ;) Hi, tried > http://www.surriel.com/patches/2.4.0-t9p2-vmpatch applied to 2.4.0-t9p4 on UP box b

Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix

2000-09-22 Thread Rik van Riel
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, James Lewis Nance wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 01:44:35PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > I've found and fixed the deadlocks in the new VM. They turned out > > to be single-cpu only bugs, which explains why they didn't crash my > > SMP tesnt box ;) > > I applied the pa

Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix

2000-09-22 Thread James Lewis Nance
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 01:44:35PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > I've found and fixed the deadlocks in the new VM. They turned out > to be single-cpu only bugs, which explains why they didn't crash my > SMP tesnt box ;) I applied the patches and ran my "build mozilla with mem=48M" test again. It

Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix

2000-09-22 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, David S. Miller wrote: > How did you get away with adding a new member to task_struct yet > not updating the INIT_TASK() macro appropriately? :-) Does it > really compile? There are a lot of fields in the task_struct which do not have fields declared in the INIT_TASK macro.

Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix

2000-09-21 Thread David S. Miller
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:18:05 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> As far as sleep_time is ok to be set to zero its missing initialization is right. Indeed. Later, David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kern

Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix

2000-09-21 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 03:23:17PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > How did you get away with adding a new member to task_struct yet not > updating the INIT_TASK() macro appropriately? :-) Does it really > compile? As far as sleep_time is ok to be set to zero its missing initialization is righ

Problem remains - page_launder? (Was: Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix)

2000-09-21 Thread Roger Larsson
Hi again, Further hints. More testing (printks in refill_inactive and page_launder) reveals that refill_inactive works ok (16 pages) but page_launder never succeeds in my lockup state... (WHY) alloc fails since there is no inactive_clean and free is less than MIN. And then when page_launder fai

Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix

2000-09-21 Thread David S. Miller
How did you get away with adding a new member to task_struct yet not updating the INIT_TASK() macro appropriately? :-) Does it really compile? Later, David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PR

Re: [patch *] VM deadlock fix

2000-09-21 Thread Roger Larsson
Hi, Tried your patch on 2.2.4-test9-pre4 with the included debug patch applied. Rebooted, started mmap002 After a while it starts outputting (magic did not work this time - usually does): - - - "VM: try_to_free_pages (result: 1) try_again # 12345" "VM: try_to_free_pages (result: 1) try_again #