Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:38:02 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: page fault scalability patch V11 [0/7]: overview |
| |
William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Very, very wrong. The tasklist scans hold the read side of the lock >> and aren't even what's running with interrupts off. The contenders >> on the write side are what the NMI oopser oopses.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:29:29PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > *blinks* > So explain how this is "very very wrong", then?
There isn't anything left to explain. So if there's a question, be specific about it.
William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> And supposing the arch reenables interrupts in the write side's >> spinloop, you just get a box that silently goes out of service for >> extended periods of time, breaking cluster membership and more. The >> NMI oopser is just the report of the problem, not the problem itself. >> It's not a false report. The box is dead for > 5s at a time.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:29:29PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > The point is, adding a for-each-thread loop or two in /proc isn't > going to cause a problem that isn't already there. > If you had zero for-each-thread loops then you might have a valid > complaint. Seeing as you have more than zero, with slim chances of > reducing that number, then there is no valid complaint.
This entire line of argument is bogus. A preexisting bug of a similar nature is not grounds for deliberately introducing any bug.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |