On Friday 21 of October 2011 14:54:29 Nai Xia wrote: > 2011/10/20 Paweł Sikora <pluto@xxxxxxxx>: > > On Wednesday 19 of October 2011 21:42:15 Hugh Dickins wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > My vote is with the migration change. While there are occasionally > >> > > patches to make migration go faster, I don't consider it a hot path. > >> > > mremap may be used intensively by JVMs so I'd loathe to hurt it. > >> > > >> > Ok, everybody seems to like that more, and it removes code rather than > >> > adds it, so I certainly prefer it too. Pawel, can you test that other > >> > patch (to mm/migrate.c) that Hugh posted? Instead of the mremap vma > >> > locking patch that you already verified for your setup? > >> > > >> > Hugh - that one didn't have a changelog/sign-off, so if you could > >> > write that up, and Pawel's testing is successful, I can apply it... > >> > Looks like we have acks from both Andrea and Mel. > >> > >> Yes, I'm glad to have that input from Andrea and Mel, thank you. > >> > >> Here we go. I can't add a Tested-by since Pawel was reporting on the > >> alternative patch, but perhaps you'll be able to add that in later. > >> > >> I may have read too much into Pawel's mail, but it sounded like he > >> would have expected an eponymous find_get_pages() lockup by now, > >> and was pleased that this patch appeared to have cured that. > >> > >> I've spent quite a while trying to explain find_get_pages() lockup by > >> a missed migration entry, but I just don't see it: I don't expect this > >> (or the alternative) patch to do anything to fix that problem. I won't > >> mind if it magically goes away, but I expect we'll need more info from > >> the debug patch I sent Justin a couple of days ago. > > > > the latest patch (mm/migrate.c) applied on 3.0.4 also survives points > > 1) and 2) described previously (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/18/427), > > so please apply it to the upstream/stable git tree. > > > > from the other side, both patches don't help for 3.0.4+vserver host soft-lock > > Hi Paweł, > > Did your "both" mean that you applied each patch and run the tests separately, yes, i've tested Hugh's patches separately. > Maybe there were more than one bugs dancing but having a same effect, > not fixing all of them wouldn't help at all. i suppose that vserver patch only exposes some tricky bug introduced in 2.6.38. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href