On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 18:23 +0100, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > > Do we need `offset' at all?
> >
> > Looks like no.
> >
> > I wonder if there's a good argument for adding a pte_offset_val() which
> > would let us do:
> >
> > pteval = pte_offset_val(pmd, addr);
> >
> > and shrink t
Hello,
> > Do we need `offset' at all?
>
> Looks like no.
>
> I wonder if there's a good argument for adding a pte_offset_val() which
> would let us do:
>
> pteval = pte_offset_val(pmd, addr);
>
> and shrink the map/unmap window and overhead here and possibly
> elsewhere?
>
> Anyway, updated
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 17:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That worked out nicely.
Cool, feel free to add:
Signed-off-by: Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Wasn't the old code potentially pte_unmap()ping the wrong address? If we
> enter with addr==end?
Yes, that was busted.
--
Mathematics i
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:47:17 -0600
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:29 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Do we need `offset' at all?
>
> Looks like no.
>
> I wonder if there's a good argument for adding a pte_offset_val() which
> would let us do:
>
> pteval =
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:29 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Do we need `offset' at all?
Looks like no.
I wonder if there's a good argument for adding a pte_offset_val() which
would let us do:
pteval = pte_offset_val(pmd, addr);
and shrink the map/unmap window and overhead here and possibly
elsew
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:12:48 -0600
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do we need the ifdef? pte_offset_map/pte_unmap should be super-cheap on
> > !CONFIG_HIGHPTE builds.
>
> In that case, pte_unmap is free, pte_offset_map is just a bit of math.
> So yeah, we can simplify this. How ab
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:05 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:39:54 -0600
> Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 14:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > proc_loop: /proc/3731/task/3731/pagemap
> > > > kernel: BUG: sleeping function called f
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:39:54 -0600
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 14:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > proc_loop: /proc/3731/task/3731/pagemap
> > > kernel: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > fs/proc/task_mmu.c:554
> > > kernel: in_a
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 14:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > proc_loop: /proc/3731/task/3731/pagemap
> > kernel: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > fs/proc/task_mmu.c:554
> > kernel: in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0
> > kernel: Call Trace:
> > kernel: [cf1cddf0] [c000840c] s
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:15:27 +0100
Mariusz Kozlowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The script below kills powerpc. oopses get longer and more
> wonderful with every next 'cated' file.
ppc32.
> /proc//task//pagemap seems to be the cause of oops. The
> important thing is that it
Hello,
The script below kills powerpc. oopses get longer and more
wonderful with every next 'cated' file.
/proc//task//pagemap seems to be the cause of oops. The
important thing is that it oopses for random (that is not first in a row)
process from /proc. So not every 'cat /proc//task//pa
11 matches
Mail list logo
