Re: [PATCH 0/2] initial while_each_thread() fixes

[Oleg Nesterov]

Hi William,

On 12/03, William Dauchy wrote:
>
> I was wondering if this patch was also targeted for stable branch?

Unlikely... but we will see.

> Before this patch, I was testing this one
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/13/336

perhaps this patch makes more sense for stable.

But, to clarify just in case, it is not needed after this series.

> which is fixing my oom issues.

Yes, but it doesn't fix all problems even in mm/oom_kill.c, and
we need to fix while_each_thread() anyway.

> I applied the two patches on top of a 3.10.x and got some tasks
> stalled after the first OOM:

So you are saying that this was introduced by this series?

Could you retest with the recent kernel?

> INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 21,
> t=15014 jiffies, g=65569, c=65568, q=6537)

This series does not expand the rcu-locked sections except: it adds
rcu_read_lock() into has_intersects_mems_allowed() but this is the
obvious bugfix.

So far I _think_ that this series should not be blamed for that, but
I'll try to recheck.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/