On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:52:33PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:41:36 -0500 Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> >
> > Make the shadow lru->node[i].lock IRQ-safe to remove the order
> > dictated by interruption. This slightly increases the IRQ-disabled
> > section in the shadow shr
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:41:36 -0500 Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> Make the shadow lru->node[i].lock IRQ-safe to remove the order
> dictated by interruption. This slightly increases the IRQ-disabled
> section in the shadow shrinker, but it still drops all locks and
> enables IRQ after every reclaimed
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:18:24PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:50:10PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > ==
> > > [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:50:10PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > ==
> > [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
> > 3.14.0-rc1-mm1 #1 Not tainted
> > --
Hi Hugh,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:50:10PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> ==
> [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
> 3.14.0-rc1-mm1 #1 Not tainted
> --
> kswapd0/48 [HC0[
==
[ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
3.14.0-rc1-mm1 #1 Not tainted
--
kswapd0/48 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
(&(&lru->node[i].lock)->rlock){+.+.-.},
6 matches
Mail list logo