* Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1
2002-06-04 4:30 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-06-04 4:37 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-04 4:41 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Thunder from the hill
2002-06-04 4:40 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-06-04 4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill
Cc: Lightweight patch manager, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Daniel Phillips, Kai Germaschewski
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> There were discussions about a number of these patches resulting in
>> changes, would you mind letting me know what versions of these things
>> you're pushing upstream and let me hand you updates?
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:30:18PM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Since you gave it no version number, it's exactly the version which is
> saved at
> <URL:ftp://luckynet.dynu.com/pub/linux/2.5.20-ct1/single-patches/>
> Usually the latest available.
Please discard the atomic update patch altogether; there were enough
eyebrows raised that this cannot qualify as a simple cleanup.
Thanks,
Bill
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1
2002-06-04 4:37 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
@ 2002-06-04 4:41 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-06-04 4:48 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-04 16:48 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Robert Love
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-06-04 4:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Lee Irwin III
Cc: Thunder from the hill, Lightweight patch manager,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Daniel Phillips, Kai Germaschewski
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Please discard the atomic update patch altogether; there were enough
> eyebrows raised that this cannot qualify as a simple cleanup.
Is there something serious to add about them? Is it sure that they won't
work or such? Otherwise I'd suggest just getting them tested.
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1
2002-06-04 4:41 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-06-04 4:48 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-04 16:48 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Robert Love
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-06-04 4:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill
Cc: Lightweight patch manager, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Daniel Phillips, Kai Germaschewski
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Please discard the atomic update patch altogether; there were enough
>> eyebrows raised that this cannot qualify as a simple cleanup.
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:41:15PM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Is there something serious to add about them? Is it sure that they won't
> work or such? Otherwise I'd suggest just getting them tested.
The original patch as posted is incorrect due to a misreading on my
part of what the flags clearing did. One of the few remotely close
to correct alternatives follows, but I will not endorse it as a
candidate for inclusion, but give it only as an illustration of how
incorrect the originally posted patch was.
Cheers,
Bill
===== mm/page_alloc.c 1.63 vs edited =====
--- 1.63/mm/page_alloc.c Tue May 28 16:57:49 2002
+++ edited/mm/page_alloc.c Mon Jun 3 16:27:41 2002
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
if (PageWriteback(page))
BUG();
ClearPageDirty(page);
- page->flags &= ~(1<<PG_referenced);
+ __clear_bit(PG_referenced, &page->flags);
if (current->flags & PF_FREE_PAGES)
goto local_freelist;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1
2002-06-04 4:41 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Thunder from the hill
2002-06-04 4:48 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
@ 2002-06-04 16:48 ` Robert Love
2002-06-04 16:58 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Thunder from the hill
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2002-06-04 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill
Cc: William Lee Irwin III, Lightweight patch manager,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Daniel Phillips, Kai Germaschewski
On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 21:41, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > Please discard the atomic update patch altogether; there were enough
> > eyebrows raised that this cannot qualify as a simple cleanup.
>
> Is there something serious to add about them? Is it sure that they won't
> work or such? Otherwise I'd suggest just getting them tested.
Maybe it is not wise to integrate a tree with patches you do to know are
correct or not?
Robert Love
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1
2002-06-04 16:48 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Robert Love
@ 2002-06-04 16:58 ` Thunder from the hill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-06-04 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Love
Cc: Thunder from the hill, William Lee Irwin III,
Lightweight patch manager, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Daniel Phillips, Kai Germaschewski
Hi,
On 4 Jun 2002, Robert Love wrote:
> Maybe it is not wise to integrate a tree with patches you do to know are
> correct or not?
I was just wondering why my testal machine wasn't yet burning...
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1
2002-06-04 4:30 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Thunder from the hill
2002-06-04 4:37 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
@ 2002-06-04 4:40 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-04 4:41 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-04 4:42 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-06-04 4:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill
Cc: Lightweight patch manager, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Daniel Phillips, Kai Germaschewski
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> There were discussions about a number of these patches resulting in
>> changes, would you mind letting me know what versions of these things
>> you're pushing upstream and let me hand you updates?
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:30:18PM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Since you gave it no version number, it's exactly the version which is
> saved at
> <URL:ftp://luckynet.dynu.com/pub/linux/2.5.20-ct1/single-patches/>
> Usually the latest available.
Rusty Russell gave me copious assistance in clarifying and verifying the
effectiveness of the explanation given in updated buddy comment patches.
Please replace the version you've provided with the following.
Thanks,
Bill
===== mm/page_alloc.c 1.63 vs edited =====
--- 1.63/mm/page_alloc.c Tue May 28 16:57:49 2002
+++ edited/mm/page_alloc.c Mon Jun 3 15:21:55 2002
@@ -82,10 +82,13 @@
* at the bottom level available, and propagating the changes upward
* as necessary, plus some accounting needed to play nicely with other
* parts of the VM system.
- *
- * TODO: give references to descriptions of buddy system allocators,
- * describe precisely the silly trick buddy allocators use to avoid
- * storing an extra bit, utilizing entry point information.
+ * At each level, we keep one bit for each pair of blocks, which
+ * is set to 1 iff only one of the pair is allocated. So when we
+ * are allocating or freeing one, we can derive the state of the
+ * other. That is, if we allocate a small block, and both were
+ * free, the remainder of the region must be split into blocks.
+ * If a block is freed, and its buddy is also free, then this
+ * triggers coalescing into a block of larger size.
*
* -- wli
*/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1
2002-06-04 4:30 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Thunder from the hill
2002-06-04 4:37 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-04 4:40 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
@ 2002-06-04 4:41 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-04 4:42 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-06-04 4:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill
Cc: Lightweight patch manager, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Daniel Phillips, Kai Germaschewski
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> There were discussions about a number of these patches resulting in
>> changes, would you mind letting me know what versions of these things
>> you're pushing upstream and let me hand you updates?
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:30:18PM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Since you gave it no version number, it's exactly the version which is
> saved at
> <URL:ftp://luckynet.dynu.com/pub/linux/2.5.20-ct1/single-patches/>
> Usually the latest available.
Please discard the balance_classzone() patch. I will resubmit after
other cleanups have made it to mainline as it alters some of the same
lines affected by the others.
Thanks,
Bill
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-2.5.20-ct1
2002-06-04 4:30 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 Thunder from the hill
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-06-04 4:41 ` linux-2.5.20-ct1 William Lee Irwin III
@ 2002-06-04 4:42 ` William Lee Irwin III
3 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-06-04 4:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill
Cc: Lightweight patch manager, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Daniel Phillips, Kai Germaschewski
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> There were discussions about a number of these patches resulting in
>> changes, would you mind letting me know what versions of these things
>> you're pushing upstream and let me hand you updates?
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:30:18PM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Since you gave it no version number, it's exactly the version which is
> saved at
> <URL:ftp://luckynet.dynu.com/pub/linux/2.5.20-ct1/single-patches/>
> Usually the latest available.
Please replace the forget_pte() patch with the following:
Thanks,
Bill
===== mm/memory.c 1.70 vs edited =====
--- 1.70/mm/memory.c Fri May 31 18:18:07 2002
+++ edited/mm/memory.c Sun Jun 2 22:37:17 2002
@@ -310,17 +310,6 @@
return -ENOMEM;
}
-/*
- * Return indicates whether a page was freed so caller can adjust rss
- */
-static inline void forget_pte(pte_t page)
-{
- if (!pte_none(page)) {
- printk("forget_pte: old mapping existed!\n");
- BUG();
- }
-}
-
static void zap_pte_range(mmu_gather_t *tlb, pmd_t * pmd, unsigned long address, unsigned long size)
{
unsigned long offset;
@@ -779,7 +768,8 @@
pte_t zero_pte = pte_wrprotect(mk_pte(ZERO_PAGE(address), prot));
pte_t oldpage = ptep_get_and_clear(pte);
set_pte(pte, zero_pte);
- forget_pte(oldpage);
+ /* PTE's must be unmapped */
+ BUG_ON(!pte_none(oldpage));
address += PAGE_SIZE;
pte++;
} while (address && (address < end));
@@ -857,7 +847,8 @@
if (!pfn_valid(pfn) || PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn)))
set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(pfn, prot));
- forget_pte(oldpage);
+ /* PTE's must be unmapped */
+ BUG_ON(!pte_none(oldpage));
address += PAGE_SIZE;
pfn++;
pte++;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread