On 12/06/2016 08:31 AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> This should apply cleanly on top of Jen's for-next branch.
Jens, not Jen.
> @@ -1893,6 +1893,15 @@ static void blk_mq_map_swqueue(struct request_queue *q,
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, online_mask))
> contin
On 12/07/2016 02:06 PM, Douglas Miller wrote:
On 12/06/2016 09:31 AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
In blk_mq_map_swqueue, there is a memory optimization that frees the
tags of a queue that has gone unmapped. Later, if that hctx is remapped
after another topology change, the tags need to be re
On 12/06/2016 09:31 AM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
In blk_mq_map_swqueue, there is a memory optimization that frees the
tags of a queue that has gone unmapped. Later, if that hctx is remapped
after another topology change, the tags need to be reallocated.
If this allocation fails, a simple
In blk_mq_map_swqueue, there is a memory optimization that frees the
tags of a queue that has gone unmapped. Later, if that hctx is remapped
after another topology change, the tags need to be reallocated.
If this allocation fails, a simple WARN_ON triggers, but the block layer
ends up with an act
4 matches
Mail list logo
