Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1383098 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-20 09:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-21 01:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: next-20160401+: ARM: DRA7: linux-next regression: mm/slab: clean-up kmem_cache_node setup Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2016-04-20 09:20 +0200
Re: next-20160401+: ARM: DRA7: linux-next regression: mm/slab: clean-up kmem_cache_node setup Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-04-20 09:50 +0200
Re: next-20160401+: ARM: DRA7: linux-next regression: mm/slab: clean-up kmem_cache_node setup Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-04-21 01:40 +0200
| From | Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 09:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: next-20160401+: ARM: DRA7: linux-next regression: mm/slab: clean-up kmem_cache_node setup |
| Message-ID | <rpUAy-3Ut-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Joonsoo,
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
>>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I made a mistake on that patch. Could you try to test below one on
>> top of it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --------->8----------------
>> From d3af3cc409527e9be6beb62ea395cde67f3c5029 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
>> 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@lge.com>
>> ---
>> 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@nvidia.com>
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?
Cheers
Jon
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rpV3A-47Y-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1383098 |
Ccing Stephen.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:11:41AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I made a mistake on that patch. Could you try to test below one on
> >> top of it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> --------->8----------------
> >> From d3af3cc409527e9be6beb62ea395cde67f3c5029 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> >> 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@lge.com>
> >> ---
> >> 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@nvidia.com>
>
> 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?
Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 01:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rq9SW-7NA-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1383118 |
Hi Joonsoo,
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:49:00 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> 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@lge.com>
> > >> 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@lge.com>
> > >> ---
> > >> 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@nvidia.com>
> >
> > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web