Hi Joonsoo, On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:49:00 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ccing Stephen. > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:11:41AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > > On 11/04/16 12:44, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > On 11/04/16 03:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > >> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:39:20PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=146014314115625&w=2 series works with > > >>> v4.6-rc2 kernel, however, it fails with linux-next for suspend-to-ram > > >>> (mem) on BeagleBoard-X15 > > >>> > > >>> next-20160327 - good > > >>> next-20160329 - good > > >>> next-20160330 - Fails to boot - I2C crashes > > >>> next-20160331- Fails to boot - USB crashes > > >>> next-20160401 -> bad > > >>> next-20160408 -> bad > > >>> > > >>> Bisect log of next-20160408 vs v4.6-rc2 -> > > >>> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/15697856/ > > >>> > > >>> # first bad commit: [2b629704a2b6a5b239f23750e5517a9d8c3a4e8c] > > >>> mm/slab: clean-up kmem_cache_node setup > > >>> > > >> I made a mistake on that patch. Could you try to test below one on > > >> top of it. > > >> > > >> --------->8---------------- > > >> From d3af3cc409527e9be6beb62ea395cde67f3c5029 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > >> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> > > >> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:48:29 +0900 > > >> Subject: [PATCH] mm/slab: clean-up kmem_cache_node setup-fix > > >> > > >> After calling free_block(), we need to re-calculate array_cache's > > >> avail counter. Fix it. > > >> > > >> And, it's better to free objects in shared array when it is > > >> really necessary. Check it before calling free_block(). > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> > > >> --- > > >> mm/slab.c | 3 ++- > > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c > > >> index fcd5fbb..27cb390 100644 > > >> --- a/mm/slab.c > > >> +++ b/mm/slab.c > > >> @@ -927,9 +927,10 @@ static int setup_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep, > > >> > > >> n = get_node(cachep, node); > > >> spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock); > > >> - if (n->shared) { > > >> + if (n->shared && force_change) { > > >> free_block(cachep, n->shared->entry, > > >> n->shared->avail, node, &list); > > >> + n->shared->avail = 0; > > >> } > > >> > > >> if (!n->shared || force_change) { > > > > > > This also fixes a regression on -next for Tegra that was bisected down > > > to the same culprit. So ... > > > > > > Tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This fix still doesn't appear to have made it into -next and this has > > been broken now for nearly 3 weeks. Any chance we can get this into -next? > > Sorry about that. > > Hello, Stephen. > > It seems that Andrew is busy now. I guess he will be back soon but > could you merge this fix to the next tree directly? I have added that patch from today. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell -- 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
