Re: PAE problems was [RFC] Reproducible OOM with just a few sleeps

2013-02-10 Thread Pavel Machek
On Wed 2013-02-06 16:28:08, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 02/01/2013 02:25 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Ouch, and... IIRC (hpa should know for sure), PAE is neccessary for > > R^X support on x86, thus getting more common, not less. If it does not > > work, that's bad news. > > Dare I ask what "R^X" is?

Re: PAE problems was [RFC] Reproducible OOM with just a few sleeps

2013-02-06 Thread Dave Hansen
On 02/01/2013 02:25 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Ouch, and... IIRC (hpa should know for sure), PAE is neccessary for > R^X support on x86, thus getting more common, not less. If it does not > work, that's bad news. Dare I ask what "R^X" is? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib

Re: PAE problems was [RFC] Reproducible OOM with just a few sleeps

2013-02-01 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 08:57 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: [...] > OK, so by the time this thread gets to me there is of course no > information in it. Here's the history: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/93278 > The vast majority of all 32-bit kernels compiled these days are PAE, so

Re: PAE problems was [RFC] Reproducible OOM with just a few sleeps

2013-02-01 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 02/01/2013 02:25 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: On Fri 2013-02-01 11:20:44, Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 2013-01-31 23:38:27, Phil Turmel wrote: On 01/31/2013 10:13 PM, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote: [trim /] Does not that prove that PAE is broken? Please, Paul, take *yes* for an answer. It is