From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx189.postini.com [74.125.245.189]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE3B86B007D for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:00:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ia0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r4so5804952iaj.14 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:00:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20121008150949.GA15130@redhat.com> <20121017040515.GA13505@redhat.com> <1351167554.23337.14.camel@twins> <1351175972.12171.14.camel@twins> <1351241323.12171.43.camel@twins> From: Sasha Levin Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:59:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch for-3.7] mm, mempolicy: fix printing stack contents in numa_maps Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linus Torvalds , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Dave Jones , Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , bhutchings@solarflare.com, Konstantin Khlebnikov , Naoya Horiguchi , Hugh Dickins , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Ping? Can someone take it before it's lost? On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:09 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> > >>> > So I think the below should work, we hold the spinlock over both rb-tree >>> > modification as sp free, this makes mpol_shared_policy_lookup() which >>> > returns the policy with an incremented refcount work with just the >>> > spinlock. >>> > >>> > Comments? >>> >>> Looks reasonable, if annoyingly complex for something that shouldn't >>> be important enough for this. Oh well. >> >> I agree with that.. Its just that when doing numa placement one needs to >> respect the pre-existing placement constraints. I've not seen a way >> around this. >> >>> However, please check me on this: the need for this is only for >>> linux-next right now, correct? All the current users in my tree are ok >>> with just the mutex, no? >> >> Yes, the need comes from the numa stuff and I'll stick this patch in >> there. >> >> I completely missed Mel's patch turning it into a mutex, but I guess >> that's what -next is for :-). > > So I've been fuzzing with it for the past couple of days and it's been > looking fine with it. Can someone grab it into his tree please? > > > Thanks, > Sasha -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org