lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [patch] x86, pat: freeing invalid memtype messages
    From
    On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Suresh Siddha
    <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
    > On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 08:41 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 17:33 +0200, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
    >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 07:07:27PM +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
    >> > > On 06/21/2010 07:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >> > > > On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 18:56 +0800, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
    >> > > >
    >> > > >> I guess there might be something wrong between the augmented rbtree insert/remove ..
    >> > > >
    >> > > > The easiest thing is to revert that change and try again, the next step
    >> > > > would be to print the full RB tree on each modification and look where
    >> > > > it goes wrong.
    >> > > >
    >> > > > That said, I did print my fair share of (augmented) RB trees while
    >> > > > playing with scheduler patches and I can't remember it ever having
    >> > > > messed up like that.
    >> > > He's using 2.6.35-rc2+, without your "rbtree: Undo augmented trees
    >> > > performance damage" patch ;-)
    >> >
    >> > I applied it manually (commit 2463eb8b3093995e09a0d41b3d78ee0cf5fb4249 from -tip)
    >> > to 2.6.35-rc3 and it fixed both acpi's and nouveau's "invalid memtype" messages.
    >> > Thanks.
    >>
    >> Oh neat, so it actually fixes a bug in the previous augmented rb-tree
    >> implementation?
    >
    > When I was reviewing your fix, it looked like that prior to your fix we
    > were re-augmenting only at points where we do the tree rotations/color
    > change and at the points of node insertion/removal. I don't think we
    > were re-augmenting all the parent nodes in the path of the selected-node
    > that is going to replace the deleted node.
    >
    > Perhaps we were hitting this issue here.
    >

    rb_erase was calling the augment callback with successor_parent_cb.
    That should be doing proper re-augmenting on delete.

    May be we are hitting the problem with not-initializing
    subtree_max_end on insert? That was fixed in a later patch.

    Thanks,
    Venki


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-21 20:11    [W:0.024 / U:159.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site