Re: Possible regression with cgroups in 3.11

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> Btw. how reproducible is this? Do you think you could try to bisect
>> it down? Reducing bisection to mm/ and kernel/ diretories should be
>> sufficient I guess.
> 
> The bug is quite reproducible here .. within a few minutes at most.
> Since we have diskless clients with nfsroot and aufs, bisectioning
> proved to be a bit difficult (means the kernel compiled and booted but
> aufs failed on /etc). But then I have tried bisectioning the whole
> kernel sources. Tomorrow, I will first try to test without
> CONFIG_MEMCG_SWAP_ENABLED and CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM, and then give
> bisectioning only the two directories another try. Btw. I never saw
> this bug before 3.11, but it may well be, that because of some trivial
> code change, it became much more likely to trigger.
> 

This is possible, given we got another bug report which happened in 3.10
and we've been changing the cgroup teardown code in the past few releases
by using workqueue and brand-new percpu ref.

Still I'd suggest you bisect from 3.10 to 3.11.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux