* Christopher Warner ([email protected]) wrote: > Actually I am testing your patches. Its just going to take some time. > The problem occurs under severe load and I'm in the process of doing > load testing this for an inhouse app this week. Soon as i'm able to send > debug information I will. Same here. I've just never found a way to trigger other than wait. thanks, -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- References:
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Christopher Warner <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] xprt.c use after free of work_structs
- Next by Date: RE: x86-64 dual core mapping
- Previous by thread: Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- Next by thread: Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II
- Index(es):
 |