On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > > well, the __GFP_IO part is included (in a different way). The slab.c part
> > > is not included.
> >
> > Actually the __GFP_IO check is now only inside ext2.
>
> no, it isnt. It's in the VFS. In fac
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Test of 2.4.0-t9p6 + vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 + vmfixes-B2-deadlock.patch
>
> note that this is effectively test9-pre7 (with a couple of more fixes and
> the new multiqueue stuff), so you might want to test that as well.
Hi,
have tried the same test
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > well, the __GFP_IO part is included (in a different way). The slab.c part
> > is not included.
>
> Actually the __GFP_IO check is now only inside ext2.
no, it isnt. It's in the VFS. In fact the __GFP_IO check has not changed
semantically, it jus
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2000, Juan J. Quintela wrote:
>
> > Ingo, I am very wrong, or vmfixes-B2_deadlock is not included in
> > test9-pre7.
>
> well, the __GFP_IO part is included (in a different way). The slab.c part
> is not included.
Actually the __
On 26 Sep 2000, Juan J. Quintela wrote:
> Ingo, I am very wrong, or vmfixes-B2_deadlock is not included in
> test9-pre7.
well, the __GFP_IO part is included (in a different way). The slab.c part
is not included.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc
> "ingo" == Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi
>> Thank You! Seems to be much better now:
>>
>> Test of 2.4.0-t9p6 + vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 + vmfixes-B2-deadlock.patch
ingo> note that this is effectively test8-pre7 (with a couple of more fixes and
ingo> the new multiqueue stuff), s
> note that this is effectively test8-pre7 (with a couple of more fixes and
^-9
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Martin Diehl wrote:
> Thank You! Seems to be much better now:
>
> Test of 2.4.0-t9p6 + vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 + vmfixes-B2-deadlock.patch
note that this is effectively test8-pre7 (with a couple of more fixes and
the new multiqueue stuff), so you might want to test that as
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> There is a known deadlock with Ingo's patch.
>
> I'm attaching a patch which should fix it. (on top of
> vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2)
Hi,
Thank You! Seems to be much better now:
Test of 2.4.0-t9p6 + vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 + vmfixes-B2-deadlock.patch
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Martin Diehl wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Martin Diehl wrote:
>
> > PS: vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 not yet tested - will do later.
>
> Hi - done now:
>
> using 2.4.0-t9p6 + vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 I ended up with the box
> deadlocked again! Was "make bzImage" on UP boot
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Martin Diehl wrote:
> PS: vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 not yet tested - will do later.
Hi - done now:
using 2.4.0-t9p6 + vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 I ended up with the box
deadlocked again! Was "make bzImage" on UP booted with mem=8M.
After about 4 hours at load 2-3 and almost cont
Hi,
want to summarize my observations wrt the VM-deadlock issue. Everything
tested on UP box bootet with mem=8M and 500M swap.
2.4.0-t9p4 (vanilla)
deadlocks almost everywhere (even in initscripts!), simple dd with
large enough bs deadlock's as soon as page_out should start - i.e. no
12 matches
Mail list logo
