Re: [patch for-3.7] mm, mempolicy: fix printing stack contents innuma_maps

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:21:10PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
 > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Dave Jones wrote:
 > 
 > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:24:32PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
 > >  > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Dave Jones wrote:
 > >  > 
 > >  > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:269
 > >  > 
 > >  > Hmm, looks like we need to change the refcount semantics entirely.  We'll 
 > >  > need to make get_vma_policy() always take a reference and then drop it 
 > >  > accordingly.  This work sif get_vma_policy() can grab a reference while 
 > >  > holding task_lock() for the task policy fallback case.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Comments on this approach?
 > > 
 > > Seems to be surviving my testing at least..
 > > 
 > 
 > Sounds good.  Is it possible to verify that policy_cache isn't getting 
 > larger than normal in /proc/slabinfo, i.e. when all processes with a 
 > task mempolicy or shared vma policy have exited, are there still a 
 > significant number of active objects?

Killing the fuzzer caused it to drop dramatically.

Before:
(15:29:59:davej@bitcrush:trinity[master])$ sudo cat /proc/slabinfo  | grep policy
shared_policy_node   2931   2967    376   43    4 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata     69     69      0
numa_policy         2971   6545    464   35    4 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata    187    187      0

After:
(15:30:16:davej@bitcrush:trinity[master])$ sudo cat /proc/slabinfo  | grep policy
shared_policy_node      0    215    376   43    4 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata      5      5      0
numa_policy           15    175    464   35    4 : tunables    0    0    0 : slabdata      5      5      0


--
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/