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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox