[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1009100818480.5721@vega.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:28:00 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark Hills <mark@...o.org.uk>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cgroup: rmdir() does not complete
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:04:31 +0100 (BST)
> Mark Hills <mark@...o.org.uk> wrote:
> > The report on the spinning process (23586) is dominated by calls from
> > mem_cgroup_force_empty.
> >
> > It seems to show lru_add_drain_all and drain_all_stock_sync are causing
> > the load (I assume drain_all_stock_sync has been optimised out). But I
> > don't think this is as important as what causes the spin.
> >
>
> I noticed you use FUSE and it seems there is a problem in FUSE v.s. memcg.
> I wrote a patch (onto 2.6.36 but can be applied..)
>
> Could you try this ? I'm sorry I don't use FUSE system and can't test
> right now.
What makes you conclude that FUSE is in use? I do not think this is the
case. Or do you mean that it is a problem that the kernel is built with
FUSE support?
I _can_ test the patch, but I still cannot reliably reproduce the problem
so it will be hard to conclude whether the patch works or not. Is there a
way to build a test case for this?
Thanks for your help
--
Mark
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists