On Thursday 12 June 2008 04:09, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:48:21 +1000 > > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The tmpfs PageSwapBacked stuff seems rather broken. For > > > > them write_begin/write_end path, it is filemap.c, not shmem.c, > > > > which allocates the page, so its no wonder it goes bug. Will > > > > try to do more testing without shmem. > > Fun, so what does shmem_alloc_page do? > > > > rikstuff. Could be that the merge caused a problem? > > > > Doesn't look like it, but I hadn't followed the changes too closely: > > rather they just need to test loopback over tmpfs. > > Does loopback over tmpfs use a different allocation path? I'm sorry, hmm I didn't look closely enough and forgot that write_begin/write_end requires the callee to allocate the page as well, and that Hugh had nicely unified most of that. So maybe it's not that. It's pretty easy to hit I found with ext2 mounted over loopback on a tmpfs file. > > Is the plan to merge all reclaim changes in a big hit, rather than > > slowly trickle in the different independent changes? > > My original plan was to merge them incrementally, but Andrew is > right that we should give the whole set as much testing as > possible. > > I have done all the cleanups Andrew asked and fixed the bugs > that I found after that merge/cleanup. Your bug is the one > I still need to fix before giving Andrew a whole new set of > split LRU patches to merge. > > (afterwards, I will go incremental fixes only - the cleanups > he asked for were just too big to do as incrementals) OK. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
