linux-kernel - Re: memory-controller patch fails to boot in qemu [mmotm]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090802162732.GE8514@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:57:32 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Cc:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: memory-controller patch fails to boot in qemu [mmotm]

* Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk> [2009-08-02 17:12:53]:

> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > * Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk> [2009-08-01 23:09:09]:
> > > 
> > > Hmm, this a weird function, passed an argument just to tell it to do
> > > nothing.  Perhaps a placeholder for something more sensible to come?
> > 
> > The argument is passed a result of a function, It no-ops quite
> > frequently for the root cgroup.
> 
> The more often it no-ops, the sillier it is to be called in
> the first place: here's an updated patch which fixes that too.
> 
> 
> [PATCH mmotm] memory controller: soft limit organize cgroups v9 fix
> 
> CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y CONFIG_PREEMPT=y mmotm fails to boot:
> Kernel panic - not syncing: No init found; after lots of scheduling
> while atomics, starting from when async_thread does sd_probe_async.
> 
> mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check() was doing an unbalanced get_cpu():
> don't get_cpu if we won't need it, and put_cpu if we did get_cpu.
> 
> And fix the silliness of passing it an "over_soft_limit" argument
> that just tells it to return false when false.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>

Fair enough (I guess my intention of keeping if blocks outside for
each call site, does not pay sufficiently enough), Thanks for the cleanup


Reviewed-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
 

-- 
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/