On Wed 10-07-13 18:25:06, azurIt wrote: > >> Now i realized that i forgot to remove UID from that cgroup before > >> trying to remove it, so cgroup cannot be removed anyway (we are using > >> third party cgroup called cgroup-uid from Andrea Righi, which is able > >> to associate all user's processes with target cgroup). Look here for > >> cgroup-uid patch: > >> https://www.develer.com/~arighi/linux/patches/cgroup-uid/cgroup-uid-v8.patch > >> > >> ANYWAY, i'm 101% sure that 'tasks' file was empty and 'under_oom' was > >> permanently '1'. > > > >This is really strange. Could you post the whole diff against stable > >tree you are using (except for grsecurity stuff and the above cgroup-uid > >patch)? > > > Here are all patches which i applied to kernel 3.2.48 in my last test: > http://watchdog.sk/lkml/patches3/ The two patches from Johannes seem correct. >From a quick look even grsecurity patchset shouldn't interfere as it doesn't seem to put any code between handle_mm_fault and mm_fault_error and there also doesn't seem to be any new handle_mm_fault call sites. But I cannot tell there aren't other code paths which would lead to a memcg charge, thus oom, without proper FAULT_FLAG_KERNEL handling. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>