[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1221772310.4779.29.camel@calx>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:11:50 -0700
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i_mutex
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:29 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > in 7 days that's about 7000 random bootups, 20% of which had TINY_SHMEM
> > enabled, half 32-bit, half 64-bit x86. It did not blow up in any way
> > that would have prevented the kernel from building its next random
> > version from within itself and it did not produce any kernel messages
> > with various random kernel debug, compile and boot options.
> >
>
> Does anything in that workload actually use shared memory?
[adding Dave]
For the record, Hugh tracked down the history of this bug and it went
something like this:
- I forked shmem.c and trimmed it down, keeping the function in question
intact
- Dave Hansen made divergent changes to shmem and tiny-shmem for reasons
that aren't immediately obvious
- Al Viro fixed a resultant dput bug
- Nick fixed a resultant deadlock bug by undoing the divergence
As far as Hugh and I can see, there was no reason for the divergent
change. Really, we should probably re-unify the files to prevent such
further confusion.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists