Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.32 cgroup regression | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:09:57 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 16:25 +0900, Minoru Usui wrote: > Hi, Mike > > On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:56:01 +0200 > Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 13:10 -0700, Josh Hunt wrote: > > > This commit makes the ltp cpuctl latency test #2 hang indefinitely: > > > > > > commit b5d9d734a53e0204aab0089079cbde2a1285a38f > > > Author: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> > > > Date: Tue Sep 8 11:12:28 2009 +0200 > > > > > > sched: Ensure that a child can't gain time over it's parent after fork() > > > > Ouch. Yeah, that commit is buggy, and never got fixed up in stable. > > Reverting it will restore a slightly less buggy, but not very good > > situation. Getting the fork problems all fixed up took a while. > > (quick fix vs revert didn't help your testcase) > > I'm interested in this problem, because I hit the same problem in RHEL6 beta2. > (It based on 2.6.32) > > Are you writing a patch to solving this problem?
No, the necessary patches were already written. I just needed to backport. Illness and squabbles with git sendemail (i lost) held me up.
> If you are doing, I can test it in RHEL6 beta2 (or latest).
I just sent a 50 patch series, ever so lovingly git am applied. git format-patch exported, then imported into evolution one darn patch at a time, to stable to either apply or bin as maintainers see fit. To test, all you should need to do is test mainline. If you'd like a quilt tarball against 32.21 anyway, just holler.
The series has all the fork/exec/wakeup/hotplug yada yada fixes I think are mana from heaven for our long-term stable kernel. I may well get "are you outta yer ever lovin' mind?" back, but _I_ think it's needed, so...
-Mike
| |