From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: William Dauchy <wdauchy@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>,
"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Sameer Nanda <snanda@chromium.org>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@gmail.com>,
"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] initial while_each_thread() fixes
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:22:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131203202249.GA21510@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ75kXYu943GxQpKGkpfmAj87YKbr1aoPu60zozik1MCkK7gag@mail.gmail.com>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-03 20:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-02 15:24 [PATCH 0/2] initial while_each_thread() fixes Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-02 15:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] introduce for_each_thread() to replace the buggy while_each_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-03 19:24 ` Sameer Nanda
2013-12-02 15:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] oom_kill: change oom_kill.c to use for_each_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-03 18:57 ` Sameer Nanda
2013-12-03 20:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-03 20:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-04 12:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-02 15:34 ` [PATCH 0/2] initial while_each_thread() fixes Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-03 15:46 ` Sergey Dyasly
2013-12-03 18:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-03 19:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-12-03 16:53 ` William Dauchy
2013-12-03 20:22 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-12-03 20:28 ` William Dauchy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131203202249.GA21510@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dserrg@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=msb@chromium.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=snanda@chromium.org \
--cc=wdauchy@gmail.com \
--cc=xiaobing.tu@intel.com \
--cc=xindong.ma@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.