> CC: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, "cgroups mailinglist" <cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx >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, now i can definitely confirm that problem with unremovable cgroups persists. What info do you need from me? I applied also your little 'WARN_ON' patch. azur -- 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>