On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 09:34 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 12:40:46AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Thread 1:
> > > for ((; ;))
> > > {
> > > mount -t cgroup -o cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
> > > mkdir /mnt/0 > /dev/null 2>&1
> > > rmdir /mnt/0 > /dev/null 2>&1
> > > umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
> > > }
> > >
> > > Thread 2:
> > > {
> > > mount -t cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
> > > umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
> > > }
>
> How cute... Same mountpoint in both, so these mount(2) will sometimes
> fail (cgroup picks the same sb on the same options, AFAICS) and fail
> silently due to these redirects...
>
> That's a lovely way to stress-test a large part of ro-bind stuff *and*
> umount()-related code. Could you do C equivalent of the above (just
> the same syscalls in loop, nothing fancier) and do time-stamped
> strace?
Could you also add a printk of what ->__mnt_writers was at the time of
the WARN_ON()? That will hopefully at least tell us whether we're
looking at a real leak or just a single missed mnt_want/drop_write().
Also hopefully in which direction the thing is biased. With the mount
not being around long I'm not horribly hopeful, but it can't hurt.
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
