This is commit 38dca988bb20 ("checkpatch: allow space between colon
and bracket") upstream, why is that not mentioned anywhere?
*Please* mention the upstream commits when back-porting things.
Linus
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:03 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> From: Heinrich Schuch
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Yes, it would leave the other blocked, how is it different from having
> just 1 reader and it gets killed?
Either is completely wrong. But the read() code can at least see that
"I'm returning early due to a signal, so I'll wake up any
On Jun 15, 2015 11:43 AM, "Andrea Arcangeli" wrote:
>
> Several times I got very hardly reproducible bugs noticed purely
> because of BUG_ON (not VM_BUG_ON)
Feel free to use them while developing. Don't send me patches with your
broken debug code, though.
For users, a dead machine means that it
On Jun 15, 2015 7:22 AM, "Andrea Arcangeli" wrote:
>
> Blocking reads can easily use exclusive wakeups. Poll in theory could
> too but there's no poll_wait_exclusive in common code yet.
NAK.
Tie while commit message is crap, and so us the comment
No, your really cannot "easily use exclusive wai
On Jun 15, 2015 7:22 AM, "Andrea Arcangeli" wrote:
>
> + if (cmd != UFFDIO_API) {
> + if (ctx->state == UFFD_STATE_WAIT_API)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + BUG_ON(ctx->state != UFFD_STATE_RUNNING);
> + }
NAK.
Once again: we don't add BUG_ON(
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> To fix it I added this along a comment:
Ok, this looks good as a explanation/fix for the races (and also as an
example of my worry about waitqueue_active() use in general).
However, it now makes me suspect that the optimistic "let's ch
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> +static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> + struct userfaultfd_wake_range
> *range)
> +{
> + if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->fault_wqh))
> + __wake_
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Thanks for your idea that the UFFDIO_COPY is faster, the userland code
> we submitted for qemu only uses UFFDIO_COPY|ZEROPAGE, it never uses
> UFFDIO_REMAP.
Ok. So there's no actual expected use of the remap interface. Good.
That makes
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> remap_pages is the lowlevel mm helper needed to implement
> UFFDIO_REMAP.
This function is nasty nasty nasty.
Is this really worth it? On real loads? That people are expected to use?
Considering how we just got rid of one special magic V
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> I see what you mean. The only cons I see is that we couldn't use then
> recv(tmp_addr, PAGE_SIZE), remap_anon_pages(faultaddr, tmp_addr,
> PAGE_SIZE, ..) and retain the zerocopy behavior. Or how could we?
> There's no recvfile(userfault
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Of course if somebody has better ideas on how to resolve an anonymous
> userfault they're welcome.
So I'd *much* rather have a "write()" style interface (ie _copying_
bytes from user space into a newly allocated page that gets mapped)
t
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> Overall this looks a fairly small change to the rmap code, notably
> less intrusive than the nonlinear vmas created by remap_file_pages.
Considering that remap_file_pages() was an unmitigated disaster, and
-mm has a patch to remove it e
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> This teaches gup_fast and __gup_fast to re-enable irqs and
> cond_resched() if possible every BATCH_PAGES.
This is disgusting.
Many (most?) __gup_fast() users just want a single page, and the
stupid overhead of the multi-page version is
This needs more explanation than that one-liner comment. Make the
commit message explain why the new FOLL_TRIED flag exists.
Linus
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> From: Andres Lagar-Cavilla
>
> Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář
> Signed-off-by: Andres Lagar-Cavilla
>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Alex Williamson
wrote:
>
> I'm pretty anxious to find out as well. Linus, ping, any thoughts on
> including this in 3.6? Thanks,
I just pulled it, but then I unpulled again when I realized it's not a
signed tag and it's on github.
Please, people. Do tagged rele
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:40 PM, David Gibson
wrote:
>
> This patch, therefore, stores a pointer to the inode instead of the
> address_space in the page private data for hugepages. More
> importantly it correctly adjusts the reference count on the inodes
> when they're added to the page private
16 matches
Mail list logo
