Li Zefan wrote: > Al Viro wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 01:09:17PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: >> >>> I ran following testcase, and triggered the warning in 1 hour: >>> >>> thread 1: >>> for ((; ;)) >>> { >>> mount --bind /cgroup /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 >>> umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 >>> } >>> >>> tread 2: >>> for ((; ;)) >>> { >>> mount -t cgroup -o cpu xxx /cgroup > /dev/null 2>&1 >>> mkdir /cgroup/0 > /dev/null 2>&1 >>> rmdir /cgroup/0 > /dev/null 2>&1 >>> umount -l /cgroup > /dev/null 2>&1 >>> } >> Wow. You know, at that point these redirects could probably be removed. > > Ah, yes. > >> If anything in there ends up producing an output, we very much want to >> see that. Actually, I'd even make that >> mount --bind /cgroup/mnt || (echo mount1: ; date) >> etc., so we'd see when do they fail and which one fails (if any)... >> >> Which umount has failed in the above, BTW? >> >> > > the first one sometimes failed, and the second one hasn't failed: > Just triggered the warning at about: Fri Feb 13 14:26:03 CST 2009 But both 2 threads were not failing at that time: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /cgroup, missing codepage or helper program, or other error In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try dmesg | tail or so mount1 Fri Feb 13 14:25:21 CST 2009 umount: /mnt: not mounted mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /cgroup, ... mount1 Fri Feb 13 14:26:32 CST 2009 umount: /mnt: not mounted mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /cgroup, ... _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers