[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yf6sskyXcffxTA+b@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 08:58:26 -0800
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Egorenkov <egorenar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] mm: memcg: synchronize objcg lists with a
dedicated spinlock
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:19:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:33:04 -0800 Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>
> > Alexander reported a circular lock dependency revealed by the mmap1
> > ltp test:
> > LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR (suite: ltp, case: mtest06 (mmap1))
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Fixes: bf4f059954dc ("mm: memcg/slab: obj_cgroup API")
>
> I'm thinking it needs cc:stable. It sounds unlikely that we'll hit it
> in real life, but lockdep splats are concerning and I expect downstream
> kernel consumers will end up merging this anyway, for this reason.
>
I agree.
I'm somewhat surprised that we haven't seen any such warnings until recently,
so I guess some recent kmem accounting change made it more probable.
Anyway, it feels like it's a low risk change and I see no reasons
to not backport it to stable.
Thank you!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists