On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:22:19 +0530, Mahesh J Salgaonkar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 03:52:38PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Mahesh J Salgaonkar
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > During free we do free all of them including RMO region. But since
>> > the rtas region is alw
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 19:20 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > As long as the races to avoid are between map/unmap vs. access, yes, it
> > -should- be fine, and we used to not do demand faulting on kernel space
> > (but for how long ?). I'm wondering why we don't just stick a ptl in
> > there or is the
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> As long as the races to avoid are between map/unmap vs. access, yes, it
> -should- be fine, and we used to not do demand faulting on kernel space
> (but for how long ?). I'm wondering why we don't just stick a ptl in
> there or is there a good
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 18:41 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > I don't know what the right way to fix that is. We have an absolute
> > requirement that the batching we start within a lazy MMU section
> > is complete and flushed before any other PTE in that section can be
> > touched by anything else. D
Hi Linus
Here's a fix for the regression introduced by
b5d937de0367d26f65b9af1aef5f2c34c1939be0 along with a bug fix from Mike
Wolf for a nasty BUG_ON() that shoudn't be there for some odd case of
threaded core dumps, and 3 patches from Meador Inge that I plain forgot
to include before.
Cheers,
B
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 21:11 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > As I warned a few weeks ago, Jeremy has vmalloc apply_to_pte_range
> > patches in mmotm, which again assault PowerPC's expectations, and
> > cause lots of noise with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
commit cf9efce0ce31 (powerpc: Account time using timebase rather
than PURR) used in_irq() to detect if the time was spent in
interrupt processing. This only catches hardirq context so if we
are in softirq context and in the idle loop we end up accounting it
as idle time. If we instead use in_inter
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 18:52 -0500, kevin diggs wrote:
> I am seeing ... issues with the optical drive (hda) under 2.6.36. I
> can't mount disks:
>
> [root@PowerMacG5 ~]# mount -r /dev/hda /mnt/cdrom
> mount: /dev/hda already mounted or /mnt/cdrom busy
>
> The log has:
>
> [ 239.922268] hda: irq
From: Mike Wolf
In some cases during a threaded core dump not all the threads will have
a full register set. This happens when the signal causing the core dump
races with a thread exiting. The race happens when the exiting thread
has entered the kernel for the last time before the signal arrives
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 08:37 -0500, Michael Wolf wrote:
> In some cases during a threaded core dump not all
> the threads will have a full register set. This
> will cause problems when the sigkill is sent to
> the thread. To solve this problem a poison value
> (0xdeadbeef) will be placed in the b
On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 21:11 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> As I warned a few weeks ago, Jeremy has vmalloc apply_to_pte_range
> patches in mmotm, which again assault PowerPC's expectations, and
> cause lots of noise with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG=y.
>
> This time in vmalloc as well as
Hi,
I am seeing ... issues with the optical drive (hda) under 2.6.36. I
can't mount disks:
[root@PowerMacG5 ~]# mount -r /dev/hda /mnt/cdrom
mount: /dev/hda already mounted or /mnt/cdrom busy
The log has:
[ 239.922268] hda: irq timeout: status=0xd0 { Busy }
[ 239.922485] hda: possibly failed
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 00:25 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Hi Grant,
> >
> > I've been unable to boot mmotm on the G5 for a few weeks; and now that
> > the problem has reached Linus, I've bisected and it converges on your:
> >
> > commit b5d93
13 matches
Mail list logo
