> I think it again, and found that this check is necessary. Because we only
> lock memory hotplug when offlining pages. Here is the steps to offline and
> remove memory:
>
> 1. lock memory hotplug
> 2. offline a memory section
> 3. unlock memory hotplug
> 4. repeat 1-3 to offline all memory section
ust optimization and does not fix any problem.
>
> CC: David Rientjes
> CC: Jiang Liu
> CC: Len Brown
> CC: Christoph Lameter
> Cc: Minchan Kim
> CC: Andrew Morton
> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro
> CC: Wen Congyang
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
> ---
> mm/memor
; CC: Jiang Liu
> CC: Len Brown
> CC: Christoph Lameter
> Cc: Minchan Kim
> CC: Andrew Morton
> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro
> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/memmap.c| 98
> ++
the check.
> CC: David Rientjes
> CC: Jiang Liu
> CC: Len Brown
> CC: Christoph Lameter
> Cc: Minchan Kim
> CC: Andrew Morton
> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro
> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>
> ---
> drivers/base/memory.c |
> Known problems:
> 1. memory can't be offlined when CONFIG_MEMCG is selected.
>For example: there is a memory device on node 1. The address range
>is [1G, 1.5G). You will find 4 new directories memory8, memory9, memory10,
>and memory11 under the directory /sys/devices/system/memory/.
>
ras
> CC: Christoph Lameter
> Cc: Minchan Kim
> CC: Andrew Morton
> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro
> CC: Wen Congyang
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
> ---
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c | 13 +
> mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> Then, you introduced bisect breakage. It is definitely unacceptable.
>
> What is "bisect breakage" meaning?
Think what's happen when only applying path [1/21].
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listin
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 05:25 PM, we...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
>>
>> From: Wen Congyang
>>
>> The function acpi_bus_remove() can remove a acpi device from acpi device.
>
> IIUC, s/acpi device/acpi bus
IIUC, acpi_bus_remove() mean "remove the device from
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
wrote:
> Hi Chen,
>
>
> 2012/09/28 11:22, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
>>
>> On 09/05/2012 05:25 PM, we...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>>>
>>> remove_memory() only try to offline pages. It is called in two cases:
>>> 1. hot remo
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
wrote:
> Hi Wen,
>
> 2012/06/27 17:49, Wen Congyang wrote:
>> At 06/27/2012 01:44 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu Wrote:
>>> When offline_pages() is called to offlined memory, the function fails since
>>> all memory has been offlined. In this case, the func
; CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> CC: Paul Mackerras
> CC: Christoph Lameter
> Cc: Minchan Kim
> CC: Andrew Morton
> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro
> CC: Wen Congyang
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>
> ---
> drivers/base/memory.c | 20
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 1b7dc66..195d6e1 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2447,7 +2447,8 @@ static inline int pte_unmap_same(struct mm_struct *mm,
> pmd_t *pmd,
> return same;
> }
>
> -static inline void cow_user_page(struct page *dst, struct p
Adapt new API.
Almost change is trivial. Most important change is the below line
because we plan to change task->cpus_allowed implementation.
- ctx->cpus_allowed = current->cpus_allowed;
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Cc: lin
> > @@ -268,9 +269,9 @@ void __init cbe_regs_init(void)
> > thread->regs = map;
> > thread->cbe_id = cbe_id;
> > map->be_node = thread->be_node;
> > - cpu_set(i, cbe_local_mask
break;
> if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->access)
> ret = vma->vm_ops->access(vma, addr, buf,
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
> , Ian Munsie wrote:
> > From: Ian Munsie
> >
> > This patch converts numerous trivial compat syscalls through the generic
> > kernel code to use the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE family of macros.
>
> Why? This just makes the code look uglier and the functions harder
> to grep for.
I guess trace-syscal
> On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> >>> I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it
> >>> as well.
> >>
> >> There's only one CONFIG_GROWSUP arch - parisc.
> >> Could someone please test it on parisc?
>
> I did.
>
> > How about doing:
> >'ulimit -s 15
d with 64K pages,
> where a ulimit below 1280K will kill every process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling
> Cc: sta...@kernel.org
> ---
> Attempts to answer comments from Kosaki Motohiro.
>
> Tested on PPC only, hence !CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP. Someone should
> probably A
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> wrote:
> >> --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/fs/exec.c
> >> +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c
> >> @@ -627,10 +627,13 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm
> >> goto out_unlock;
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > I didn't discuss which behavior is better. Michael said he want to apply
> > his patch to 2.6.32 & 2.6.33. stable tree never accept the breaking
> > compatibility patch.
> >
> > Your answer doesn't explain why can't we wait it until next merge window.
> >
> >
> > btw, personally,
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Why do we need page size independent stack size? It seems to have
> > > > compatibility breaking risk.
> > >
> > > I don't think so. The current behaviour is clearly wrong, we dont need a
> > > 16x larger stack just because you went from a 4kB to a 64kB base page
>
Hi
> apkm, linus: this or something like it needs to go into 2.6.33 (& 32) to
> fix 'ulimit -s'.
"fix ulimit -s" is too cool explanation ;-)
we are not ESPer. please consider to provide what bug is exist.
> Mikey
>
> [PATCH] Restrict stack space reservation to rlimit
>
> When reserving stac
>
> Hi,
>
> > Why do we need page size independent stack size? It seems to have
> > compatibility breaking risk.
>
> I don't think so. The current behaviour is clearly wrong, we dont need a
> 16x larger stack just because you went from a 4kB to a 64kB base page
> size. The user application stac
Hi
sorry for late responce. my e-mail reading speed is very slow ;-)
First, Could you please read past thread?
I think many topic of this mail are already discussed.
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:23:15PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >
> > Current linux policy is, zone_
onfiguration for backward-compatibility.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro
Cc: Christoph Lameter
Cc: Rik van Riel
Cc: Robin Holt
Cc: "Zhang, Yanmin"
Cc: Wu Fengguang
Cc: linux-i...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h |
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:22:47 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > > I want to put into powerpc-next patches relying into that, so if the
> > > patch is ok with you guys, can I stick it in powerpc.git ?
> >
> > hm.
> > Generally, all MM patch
tracking in /proc/vmallocinfo, I need
> a "_caller" variant of it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
It seems reasonable reason and this patch looks good to me :)
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro
> I want to put into powerpc-next patches relying into that, so i
27 matches
Mail list logo
