On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 20:33 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 20:23 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 12:51 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > > Currently we can hit a scenario where we'll tm_reclaim(
On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 20:23 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 12:51 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > Currently we can hit a scenario where we'll tm_reclaim() twice.
> > > This
> > > results in a TM bad thing exception bec
On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 12:51 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > Currently we can hit a scenario where we'll tm_reclaim() twice.
> > This
> > results in a TM bad thing exception because the second reclaim
> > occurs
> > when not in suspend mode.
> >
On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> Currently we can hit a scenario where we'll tm_reclaim() twice. This
> results in a TM bad thing exception because the second reclaim occurs
> when not in suspend mode.
>
> The scenario in which this can happen is the following. We attempt to
> de
Currently we can hit a scenario where we'll tm_reclaim() twice. This
results in a TM bad thing exception because the second reclaim occurs
when not in suspend mode.
The scenario in which this can happen is the following. We attempt to
deliver a signal to userspace. To do this we need obtain the
