On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:45:05PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > Not able to understand the first code block of follow_page_mask
> > function. follow_huge_addr function is expected to find the page
> > struct for the given address if it turns o
I've plagiarized the subject from Paulus's "Problems with THP" mail
last weekend; but my similar problems are on PowerMac G5 baremetal,
with 4kB pages, not capable of THP and no THP configured in.
Under heavily swapping load, running kernel builds on tmpfs in limited
memory, I've been seeing rando
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> I do run tests on G5, but obviously not rigorously enough. I kicked off a few
> kernel builds on mine and it survived, though once it hits swap it's almost
> unusably slow. I'll leave it running overnight and see if I hit anything.
Oh yes, I'd forg
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> Can you test the impact of the merge listed below ?(ie, revert the merge and
> see if
> we can reproduce and also verify with merge applied). This will give us a
> set of commits to look closer. We had quiet a lot of page table
> related changes go
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >
> > Can you test the impact of the merge listed below ?(ie, revert the merge
> > and see if
> > we can reproduce and also verify with merge applied). This will give us a
> > set of commits to look closer.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you test the impact of the merge listed below ?(ie, revert the merge
> > > and see if
> > > we can reproduce and also verify with merge applied). Th
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can you test the impact of the merge listed below ?(ie, revert the
> > > > merge and see if
> > > > w
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 12:49 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 09:58 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > The alternative bisection was as unsatisfactory as the first:
> > again it fingered an irrelevant merge (rather than any commit
> > pulled in by that merge) as the bad commit.
> >
> > It s
On Fri, 27 May 2016, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> When we converted the asm routines to C functions, we missed updating
> HPTE_R_R based on _PAGE_ACCESSED. ASM code used to copy over the lower
> bits from pte via.
>
> andi. r3,r30,0x1fe/* Get basic set of flags */
>
> Fixes: 'commit 89f
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 09:39 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > I don't mean to be churlish, and subtract from your triumph in tracking
> > this down (assuming you have), but that commit log... okay, it's intended
> > for powerpc mmu experts, not me,
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> But all my evidence so far is that it is now right: I'll continue
> testing v4.6+fix on a couple of loads until this evening: all is
> well so far. And then switch to testing v4.5+fix on those loads
> for another day and a half.
I'm glad to confirm: y
12 matches
Mail list logo
