From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752125Ab2BRHOb (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:14:31 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:58664 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751281Ab2BRHOa (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:14:30 -0500 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hughd@google.com designates 10.68.130.39 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=hughd@google.com; dkim=pass header.i=hughd@google.com Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:14:01 -0800 (PST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: Konstantin Khlebnikov cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Ying Han , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] mm: memory book keeping and lru_lock splitting In-Reply-To: <4F3F46B7.40100@openvz.org> Message-ID: References: <20120215224221.22050.80605.stgit@zurg> <4F3C8B67.6090500@openvz.org> <4F3F46B7.40100@openvz.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > > > Yours are not the only patches I was testing in that tree, I tried to > > > gather several other series which I should be reviewing if I ever have > > > time: Kamezawa-san's page cgroup diet 6, Xiao Guangrong's 4 prio_tree > > > cleanups, your 3 radix_tree changes, your 6 shmem changes, your 4 memcg > > > miscellaneous, and then your 15 books. > > > > > > The tree before your final 15 did well under pressure, until I tried to > > > rmdir one of the cgroups afterwards: then it crashed nastily, I'll have > > > to bisect into that, probably either Kamezawa's or your memcg changes. > > > > So far I haven't succeeded in reproducing that at all: it was real, > > but obviously harder to get than I assumed - indeed, no good reason > > to associate it with any of those patches, might even be in 3.3-rc. > > > > It did involve a NULL pointer dereference in mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(), > > somewhere below compact_zone() - but repercussions were causing the > > stacktrace to scroll offscreen, so I didn't get good details. > > There some stupid bugs in my v1 patchset, it shouldn't works at all. > I did not expect that someone will try to use it. I sent it just to discuss. Yes, but as I said, that bug appeared before I put your patchset (the 15) on. Hugh