Removal of PG_marker scheme from 2.4.6-pre

Removal of PG_marker scheme from 2.4.6-pre

[Marcelo Tosatti]

Linus, 

In pre7:

"me: undo page_launder() LRU changes, they have nasty side effects"


Can you be more verbose about this ? 

Thanks 

Re: Removal of PG_marker scheme from 2.4.6-pre

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> In pre7:
>
> "me: undo page_launder() LRU changes, they have nasty side effects"
>
> Can you be more verbose about this ?

See the thread about 2.4.5-ac13+ (and my pre3+) basically becoming
unusable for longish times (temporarily locking up) on linux-kernel. It
was due to these changes.

		Linus

Re: Removal of PG_marker scheme from 2.4.6-pre

[Rik van Riel]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> In pre7:
>
> "me: undo page_launder() LRU changes, they have nasty side effects"
>
> Can you be more verbose about this ?

I think this was fixed by the GFP_BUFFER vs. GFP_CAN_FS + GFP_CAN_IO
thing and Linus accidentally backed out the wrong code ;)

cheers,
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)

Re: Removal of PG_marker scheme from 2.4.6-pre

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > "me: undo page_launder() LRU changes, they have nasty side effects"
> >
> > Can you be more verbose about this ?
>
> I think this was fixed by the GFP_BUFFER vs. GFP_CAN_FS + GFP_CAN_IO
> thing and Linus accidentally backed out the wrong code ;)

You wish.

Except it wasn't so.

Follow the list, and read the emails that were cc'd to you.

pre2 was fine, pre3 was not.

ac12 was fine, ac13 was not.

pre3 with the pre2 page_launder was fine.

There is no question about it. The patch that caused problems was the one
that was reversed. Please stop confusing the issue.

		Linus

Re: Removal of PG_marker scheme from 2.4.6-pre

[Rik van Riel]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > "me: undo page_launder() LRU changes, they have nasty side effects"
> > >
> > > Can you be more verbose about this ?
> >
> > I think this was fixed by the GFP_BUFFER vs. GFP_CAN_FS + GFP_CAN_IO
> > thing and Linus accidentally backed out the wrong code ;)
>
> You wish.
>
> Except it wasn't so.
>
> Follow the list, and read the emails that were cc'd to you.

I'll try to find them, but at the moment I'm on a slow
link (was at USENIX and am still a continent away from
where my email is) and I'm afraid I won't have too much
time for kernel stuff the next 3 weeks ;(

Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
   "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"


		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Removal of PG_marker scheme from 2.4.6-pre

[Linus Torvalds]

Correction: I said -ac13 was bad, but ac13 was actually ok. It was ac14
that was the problem spot.

Also note how Alan happened to merge the MM patches in the reverse order
from the preX series: in the -ac series, Rik's page_launder() patch is in
-ac14, while my VM changes are merged in -ac15. In my series, it was the
other way around: mine went in in -pre2, while Rik went into -pre3. In
both cases, it's the page_launder() thing that triggers it.

And in the -ac tree, there wasn't any interaction with other patches at
all, and ac14 has the "pure" page_launder() patch that was reversed in
-pre7.

And to make doubly sure, Tim <tcm@nac.net> also tested out various
pre-kernels and unofficial combinations. Thanks.

			Linus

Re: Removal of PG_marker scheme from 2.4.6-pre

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> > In pre7:
> >
> > "me: undo page_launder() LRU changes, they have nasty side effects"
> >
> > Can you be more verbose about this ?
> 
> I think this was fixed by the GFP_BUFFER vs. GFP_CAN_FS + GFP_CAN_IO
> thing and Linus accidentally backed out the wrong code ;)
> 
> cheers,
> Rik

Nope.

-ac also freezes and it does not have the GFP_BUFFER changes.