Re: + shmem-fix-faulting-into-a-hole-while-its-punched-take-2.patch added to -mm tree

From: Sasha Levin
Date: Thu Jul 10 2014 - 14:14:54 EST

On 07/10/2014 01:55 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> And finally, (not) holding the i_mmap_mutex:
> I don't understand what prompts you to show this particular task.
> I imagine the dump shows lots of other tasks which are waiting to get an
> i_mmap_mutex, and quite a lot of other tasks which are neither waiting
> for nor holding an i_mmap_mutex.
> Why are you showing this one in particular? Because it looks like the
> one you fingered yesterday? But I didn't see a good reason to finger
> that one either.

There are a few more tasks like this one, my criteria was tasks that lockdep
claims were holding i_mmap_mutex, but are actually not.

One new thing that I did notice is that since trinity spins a lot of new children
to test out things like execve() which would kill said children, there tends to
be a rather large amount of new tasks created and killed constantly.

So if you look at the bottom of the new log (attached), you'll see that there
are quite a few "trinity-subchild" processes trying to die, unsuccessfully.


Attachment: log.gz
Description: application/gzip