From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756720AbYISIlL (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:41:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750970AbYISIk5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:40:57 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:52342 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750908AbYISIk4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:40:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:40:30 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com, Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i_mutex Message-ID: <20080919084030.GB17592@elte.hu> References: <1221058864.30429.291.camel@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20080910152651.GE18644@wotan.suse.de> <20080911082709.GA14378@elte.hu> <20080914073906.GA6184@elte.hu> <20080914004442.4f8e851f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080914080631.GA10720@elte.hu> <20080914221231.GG27080@wotan.suse.de> <20080917131419.e6b7622e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080918111226.GD29968@elte.hu> <48D2ABFD.3040103@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48D2ABFD.3040103@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > in 7 days that's about 7000 random bootups, 20% of which had TINY_SHMEM > > enabled, half 32-bit, half 64-bit x86. It did not blow up in any way > > that would have prevented the kernel from building its next random > > version from within itself and it did not produce any kernel messages > > with various random kernel debug, compile and boot options. > > Does anything in that workload actually use shared memory? yes, X and a couple of other things i assume. It's the same test setup that found the lockdep assert - and lockdep needs actual use of the affected facilities. Ingo