Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:52:44 +0100 | From | Johannes Weiner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [BUG] memcg: fix false positive VM_BUG on non-SMP |
| |
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:22:47PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:02:55 +0100 > Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:16:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:48:50 +0200 > > > "Kirill A. Shutsemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote: > > > > > > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > kernel BUG at mm/memcontrol.c:2155! > > > > > > This bug has been there for a year, from which I conclude people don't > > > run memcg on uniprocessor machines a lot. > > > > > > Which is a bit sad, really. Small machines need resource control too, > > > perhaps more than large ones.. > > > > Admittedly, this patch is compile-tested on UP only, but it should be > > obvious enough. > > > > --- > > From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> > > Subject: [patch] memcg: fix page cgroup lock assert on UP > > > > Page cgroup locking primitives use the bit spinlock API functions, > > which do nothing on UP. > > > > Thus, checking the lock state can not be done by looking at the bit > > directly, but one has to go through the bit spinlock API as well. > > > > This fixes a guaranteed UP bug, where asserting the page cgroup lock > > bit as a sanity check crashes the kernel. > > > > hm, your patch is the same as Kirill's, except you named it > page_is_cgroup_locked() rather than is_page_cgroup_locked(). I guess > page_is_cgroup_locked() is a bit better.
I had not sorted by threads and somehow assumed this was another forward from you of a bugzilla report or something. I didn't see Kirill's patch until now. Sorry!
Reviewed-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
| |