On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 15:19 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 04/19/2013 02:53 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I tried to switch from SLUB to SLAB... > >> > >> ...and also from VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING_GEN to TICK_CPU_ACCOUNTING. > >> > >> 2x NOPE. > >> > >> In one kernel-build I saw in my console... > >> > >> semop(1): encountered an error: Identifier removed This looks like what Emmanuel was/is running into: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/30/1 > >> > >> ...if this says sth. to you. > >> > > [ CC folks from below thread ] > > > > I have found a thread called "Re: ipc,sem: sysv semaphore scalability" > > on LKML with a screenshot that shows the same call-trace. > > I followed it a bit. > > There is a patch in [3]... unconfirmed. > > > > Comments on the rcu read-lock and "sem_lock()" vs "sem_unlock()" from Linus. > > > > What's the status of this discussion? > > > > - Sedat - > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/30/6 > > [2] http://i.imgur.com/uk6gmq1.jpg > > [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/31/12 > > [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/31/77 > > > I am at a conference right now, but when I get > back I will check linux-next vs. all the fixes from > the semaphore scalability email thread. I'm back from the collab. summit, so AFAICT these still need to go in linux-next: ipc,sem: untangle RCU locking with find_alloc_undo: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/28/275 ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/29/119 ipc, sem: do not call sem_lock when bogus sma: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/31/12 Thanks, Davidlohr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
