On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:53:06AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 12-10-29 07:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16.
> >> I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450
On 12-10-29 07:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>> There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16.
>> I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450 server (64-bit),
>> and the other my main notebook (Core2duo 32-bi
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>> Both systems feel much more sluggish than usual with 3.4.16 running.
>> Reverted them both back to earlier kernels (3.4.9, 3.4.4-PAE),
>> and the usual responsive feel has ret
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16.
> I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450 server (64-bit),
> and the other my main notebook (Core2duo 32-bit-PAE).
>
> Both systems feel much more sluggish tha
There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16.
I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450 server (64-bit),
and the other my main notebook (Core2duo 32-bit-PAE).
Both systems feel much more sluggish than usual with 3.4.16 running.
Reverted them both back to earlier kerne
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:58:23AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:47:22AM -0500, Jacob Shin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:40:58PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 10:22 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> > > > On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:47:22AM -0500, Jacob Shin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:40:58PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 10:22 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> > > On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> However I'm not sure that this loop is correct either. Yinghai, does
> your version definitely iterate in increasing pfn order? If not then
> the max_pfn_mapped assignment must be conditional.
yes, memblock is in order.
Yinghai
--
To unsu
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:40:58PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 10:22 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> > On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> > >> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels.
> >
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 10:22 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels.
> >> Until today, it was running 3.4.9.
> >> Today I tried to upgrade it to
On 12-10-29 10:22 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>>> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels.
>>> Until today, it was running 3.4.9.
>>> Today I tried to upgrade it to 3.4.16.
>>> It h
On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels.
>> Until today, it was running 3.4.9.
>> Today I tried to upgrade it to 3.4.16.
>> It hangs in setup.c.
>>
>> I've isolated the fault
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels.
> Until today, it was running 3.4.9.
> Today I tried to upgrade it to 3.4.16.
> It hangs in setup.c.
>
> I've isolated the fault down to this specific change
> that was made betw
13 matches
Mail list logo
