On 07/17/2014 12:12 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 07/17/2014 12:10 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> > On 07/15/2014 12:28 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: >>> >> In the end I decided that we had better look at it as two problems, >>> >> the trinity faulting starvation, and the indefinite punching loop, >>> >> so 1/2 and 2/2 present both solutions: belt and braces. >> > >> > I tested that with my reproducer and it was OK, but as I already said, it's not trinity so I didn't observe the new problems in the first place. > I've started seeing a new hang in the lru code, but I'm not sure if > it's related to this patch or not (the locks are the same ones, but > the location is very different). > > I'm looking into that. Hi Hugh, The new hang I'm seeing is much simpler to analyse (compared to shmem_fallocate) and doesn't seem to be related. I'll send a separate mail and Cc you just in case, but I don't think that this patchset has anything to do with it. Otherwise, I've been unable to reproduce the shmem_fallocate hang. Thanks, Sasha -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>