Prev: Linux IO scalability and pushing over million IOPS over software iSCSI?
Next: bnx2 fails to compile on parisc because of missing get_dma_ops()
From: Phil Carmody on 22 Jun 2010 12:50
On 06/05/10 04:28 +0200, ext Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 06:19:29 pm Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > Fixing in the way of the later upstream is a bit too intrusive as a
> > > stable patch. So, I'm also not sure whether we should take it,
> > > too...
> >
> > To be frank I do not really understand what you mean.
> >
> > Anyway, I just humbly suggest not to have the "no one uses that, let's
> > have a leak" attitude. I do understand that this is a 'it's a lot of
> > churn for not much gain'. However, I think the rmmod leak is large
> > enough issue.
>
> Thanks Artem, that's exactly the kind of feedback we need.
>
> For most people, module parameters are rare, and module removal is rare.
> So the amount of leak is less than the size of the code we would add to fix
> it.
>
> If this is hitting you, it clearly changes the priorities. I will include
> the patches now.

Rusty,

Artem's passed the baton over to me to investigate, so I've reviewed
and back-ported the last known version of your patchset. I'm happy to
report that the 100% reproducable leak that we were seeing before
cannot be reproduced. As expected, given review of the code. I have
not been able to test the final driver-specific patches from your
patchset, but up to and including

[PATCH 12/18] param: simple locking for sysfs-writable charp parameters

they can all have a:

Tested-by: Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody(a)nokia.com>

I'm quite interested to see these pushed into the mainline so that I
can cherry-pick final versions for our internal tree, do you have any
schedule for that?

Cheers,
Phil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Rusty Russell on 22 Jun 2010 19:30
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 02:20:11 am Phil Carmody wrote:
> Artem's passed the baton over to me to investigate, so I've reviewed
> and back-ported the last known version of your patchset. I'm happy to
> report that the 100% reproducable leak that we were seeing before
> cannot be reproduced. As expected, given review of the code. I have
> not been able to test the final driver-specific patches from your
> patchset, but up to and including
>
> [PATCH 12/18] param: simple locking for sysfs-writable charp parameters
>
> they can all have a:
>
> Tested-by: Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody(a)nokia.com>
>
> I'm quite interested to see these pushed into the mainline so that I
> can cherry-pick final versions for our internal tree, do you have any
> schedule for that?

Thanks, Phil, I've added that. Testing is always good!

The patches are sitting in linux-next now, ready for the next merge window
(ie. 2.6.36)

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Linux IO scalability and pushing over million IOPS over software iSCSI?
Next: bnx2 fails to compile on parisc because of missing get_dma_ops()