From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: Possible regression with cgroups in 3.11 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:01:37 +0800 Message-ID: <5278B3F1.9040502@huawei.com> References: <4431690.ZqnBIdaGMg@akheu22.uni-muenster.de> <5257F7CE.90702@huawei.com> <5258E584.70500@huawei.com> <525CB337.8050105@huawei.com> <5270BFE7.4000602@huawei.com> <20131031130647.0ff6f2c7@gandalf.local.home> <20131031192732.2dbb14b3@gandalf.local.home> <5277932C.40400@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Markus Blank-Burian Cc: Steven Rostedt , Hugh Dickins , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , David Rientjes , Ying Han , Greg Thelen , Michel Lespinasse , Tejun Heo , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On 2013/11/4 21:43, Markus Blank-Burian wrote: >> synchronize_rcu() is a block operation and can keep us waiting for >> a long period, so instead it's possible that usage never goes down >> to 0 and we are in a dead loop. > > Ok, I didn't think of that. Tracing shows that the function keeps > looping. The last lines repeat indefinitely. > ... > kworker/3:5-7605 [003] .... 987.475678: > mem_cgroup_reparent_charges: usage: 1568768 > kworker/3:5-7605 [003] .... 987.478677: > mem_cgroup_reparent_charges: usage: 1568768 > kworker/3:5-7605 [003] .... 987.481675: > mem_cgroup_reparent_charges: usage: 1568768 So it's much more likely this is a memcg bug rather than a cgroup bug. I hope memcg guys could look into it, or you could do a git-bisect if you can reliably reproduce the bug.