[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120603205332.GA5412@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 16:53:32 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: at mm/page-writeback.c:1990
__set_page_dirty_nobuffers+0x13a/0x170()
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 02:31:39PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 11:23:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Things aren't happy with that patch at all.
> >
> > Yeah, at this point I think we need to just revert the compaction changes.
> >
> > Guys, what's the minimal set of commits to revert? That clearly buggy
> > "rescue_unmovable_pageblock()" function was introduced by commit
> > 5ceb9ce6fe94, but is that actually involved with the particular bug?
> > That commit seems to revert cleanly still, but is that sufficient or
> > does it even matter?
>
> I'l rerun the test with that (and Hugh's last patch) backed out, and see
> if that makes any difference.
running just over two hours with that commit reverted with no obvious ill effects so far.
Dave
--
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