[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53BED7F6.4090502@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:14:14 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
davej@...hat.com, koct9i@...il.com, lczerner@...hat.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + shmem-fix-faulting-into-a-hole-while-its-punched-take-2.patch
added to -mm tree
On 07/10/2014 01:55 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> And finally, (not) holding the i_mmap_mutex:
> I don't understand what prompts you to show this particular task.
> I imagine the dump shows lots of other tasks which are waiting to get an
> i_mmap_mutex, and quite a lot of other tasks which are neither waiting
> for nor holding an i_mmap_mutex.
>
> Why are you showing this one in particular? Because it looks like the
> one you fingered yesterday? But I didn't see a good reason to finger
> that one either.
There are a few more tasks like this one, my criteria was tasks that lockdep
claims were holding i_mmap_mutex, but are actually not.
One new thing that I did notice is that since trinity spins a lot of new children
to test out things like execve() which would kill said children, there tends to
be a rather large amount of new tasks created and killed constantly.
So if you look at the bottom of the new log (attached), you'll see that there
are quite a few "trinity-subchild" processes trying to die, unsuccessfully.
Thanks,
Sasha
Download attachment "log.gz" of type "application/gzip" (354861 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists