On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 09:55:28PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> This patch has locking problem. I've got lockdep splat under LTP.
>
> d_lock nests inside i_lock
> sysctl_lock nests inside d_lock in d_compare
>
> This patch adds i_lock nesting inside sysctl_lock.
Once ->unregistering is
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 09:55:28PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> This patch has locking problem. I've got lockdep splat under LTP.
>
> d_lock nests inside i_lock
> sysctl_lock nests inside d_lock in d_compare
>
> This patch adds i_lock nesting inside sysctl_lock.
Once ->unregistering is
This patch has locking problem. I've got lockdep splat under LTP.
[ 6633.115456] ==
[ 6633.115502] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 6633.115553] 4.9.10-debug+ #9 Tainted: G L
[ 6633.115584]
This patch has locking problem. I've got lockdep splat under LTP.
[ 6633.115456] ==
[ 6633.115502] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 6633.115553] 4.9.10-debug+ #9 Tainted: G L
[ 6633.115584]
Konstantin Khlebnikov writes:
> On 10.02.2017 10:47, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:35:02AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>
>>> # time sysctl -a > /dev/null
>>> real1m12.806s
>>> user0m0.016s
>>> sys 1m12.400s
>>>
>>> Currently only
Konstantin Khlebnikov writes:
> On 10.02.2017 10:47, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:35:02AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>
>>> # time sysctl -a > /dev/null
>>> real1m12.806s
>>> user0m0.016s
>>> sys 1m12.400s
>>>
>>> Currently only memory reclaimer could remove
On 10.02.2017 10:47, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:35:02AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
# time sysctl -a > /dev/null
real1m12.806s
user0m0.016s
sys 1m12.400s
Currently only memory reclaimer could remove this garbage.
But without significant memory pressure this
On 10.02.2017 10:47, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:35:02AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
# time sysctl -a > /dev/null
real1m12.806s
user0m0.016s
sys 1m12.400s
Currently only memory reclaimer could remove this garbage.
But without significant memory pressure this
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:35:02AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> # time sysctl -a > /dev/null
> real1m12.806s
> user0m0.016s
> sys 1m12.400s
>
> Currently only memory reclaimer could remove this garbage.
> But without significant memory pressure this never happens.
>
> This
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:35:02AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> # time sysctl -a > /dev/null
> real1m12.806s
> user0m0.016s
> sys 1m12.400s
>
> Currently only memory reclaimer could remove this garbage.
> But without significant memory pressure this never happens.
>
> This
Currently unregistering sysctl table does not prune its dentries.
Stale dentries could slowdown sysctl operations significantly.
For example, command:
# for i in {1..10} ; do unshare -n -- sysctl -a &> /dev/null ; done
creates a millions of stale denties around sysctls of loopback
Currently unregistering sysctl table does not prune its dentries.
Stale dentries could slowdown sysctl operations significantly.
For example, command:
# for i in {1..10} ; do unshare -n -- sysctl -a &> /dev/null ; done
creates a millions of stale denties around sysctls of loopback
12 matches
Mail list logo