From: Daniel Phillips <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Jens Axboe <email@example.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Richard.Zidlicky@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race] Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:01:10 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <E17wRKZ-0005vf-00@starship> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20021001173119.GY3867@suse.de> On Tuesday 01 October 2002 19:31, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On Tuesday 01 October 2002 18:56, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 01 October 2002 16:20, Richard.Zidlicky@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de wrote: > > > > > no preempt or anything fancy, m68k vanila 2.4.19 (well almost). > > > > > > > > Vanilla would be CONFIG_SMP=y, is that what you have? > > > > > > Somehow I doubt Linux supports m68k SMP machines ;) > > > > CONFIG_SMP=y works perfectly well on single cpu machines - it forces > > the spinlocks to actually exist. It's not supposed to change any > > behaviour, but you never know. Behaviour is obviously changing here. > > Again, m68k was the target. Sure fine, no good reason to be cryptic about it though. #error "m68k doesn't do SMP yet" So SMP must be off or the compile would abort. Well, the only interesting difference remaining is the extra count for the LRU. I actually had that parameterized at one time so you could turn it on/off easily, but akpm complained about #ifdef's so I took that out ;-) Richard, before I go making a test patch for you (it's not completely straightforward) can you confirm that your bug comes back when you back the lru race patch out? -- Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-01 17:59 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2002-10-01 14:20 Richard.Zidlicky 2002-10-01 15:12 ` Daniel Phillips 2002-10-01 15:29 ` Daniel Phillips 2002-10-01 16:56 ` Rik van Riel 2002-10-01 17:10 ` Daniel Phillips 2002-10-01 17:31 ` Jens Axboe 2002-10-01 18:01 ` Daniel Phillips [this message] 2002-10-01 18:04 ` Jens Axboe 2002-10-01 18:14 ` Daniel Phillips 2002-10-01 18:22 ` Rik van Riel 2002-10-02 12:07 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2002-10-02 9:45 ` Richard Zidlicky -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2002-10-20 14:37 Richard Zidlicky [not found] <20020925122439.C198@linux-m68k.org> [not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209281634240.338-100000@serv> [not found] ` <20021001112229.A235@linux-m68k.org> 2002-10-01 10:26 ` Daniel Phillips
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=E17wRKZ-0005vf-00@starship \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --cc=Richard.Zidlicky@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: 2.4 mm trouble [possible lru race]' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).