lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#8 stuck for 22s!
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Mel Gorman wrote:

> This maybe?
>
> ---8<---
> mm: memcontrol: Release css_set_lock when aborting an OOM scan
>
> css_task_iter_start acquires the css_set_lock and it must be released with
> a call to css_task_iter_end. Commmit 9cbb78bb (mm, memcg: introduce own
> oom handler to iterate only over its own threads) introduced a loop that
> was not guaranteed to call css_task_iter_end.
>
> Cc: stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 5ef8929..941f67d 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1795,6 +1795,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> mem_cgroup_iter_break(memcg, iter);
> if (chosen)
> put_task_struct(chosen);
> + css_task_iter_end(&it);
> return;
> case OOM_SCAN_OK:
> break;

What tree is this?

I'm afraid I don't understand this at all, I thought css_task_iter_end()
was added to take over for cgroup_task_iter_end() and
mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() was modified with 72ec7029937f ("cgroup: make
task iterators deal with cgroup_subsys_state instead of cgroup")
correctly. Why do we need to call css_task_iter_end() twice with your
patch?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-07 02:01    [W:0.083 / U:1.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site