Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:41:54 +0200 | From | Marcin Slusarz <> | Subject | Re: [patch] x86, pat: freeing invalid memtype messages |
| |
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:38:27AM -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Here's the patch I was referring to > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits&m=127654225011850&w=2 > > Marcin: Can you try this patch without Peter's patch and see whether > there are any issues with that. Just to make sure we don't have issues > wuth underlying augmented rbtree algorithm that somehow got fixed or > masked for the time being with Peter's change.
I tested this patch few days ago and it produced even more "invalid memtype" messages...
Marcin
| |