[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131203202249.GA21510@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:22:49 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: William Dauchy <wdauchy@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>,
"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] initial while_each_thread() fixes
Hi William,
On 12/03, William Dauchy wrote:
>
> I was wondering if this patch was also targeted for stable branch?
Unlikely... but we will see.
> Before this patch, I was testing this one
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/13/336
perhaps this patch makes more sense for stable.
But, to clarify just in case, it is not needed after this series.
> which is fixing my oom issues.
Yes, but it doesn't fix all problems even in mm/oom_kill.c, and
we need to fix while_each_thread() anyway.
> I applied the two patches on top of a 3.10.x and got some tasks
> stalled after the first OOM:
So you are saying that this was introduced by this series?
Could you retest with the recent kernel?
> INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 21,
> t=15014 jiffies, g=65569, c=65568, q=6537)
This series does not expand the rcu-locked sections except: it adds
rcu_read_lock() into has_intersects_mems_allowed() but this is the
obvious bugfix.
So far I _think_ that this series should not be blamed for that, but
I'll try to recheck.
Oleg.
--
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