Chris Down writes:
Xunlei Pang writes:
Add cond_resched() at the upper shrink_node_memcgs() to solve this
issue, and any other possible issue like meomry.min protection.
I understand the general intent of the patch, but could you clarify
your concern around memory protection?
Oh, I see, you
On Wed 26-08-20 12:43:32, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 09:47:02PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> > We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when
> > the target memcg doesn't have any reclaimable memory.
> >
> > It can be easily reproduced as below:
> > watchdog: BUG: so
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 09:47:02PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when
> the target memcg doesn't have any reclaimable memory.
>
> It can be easily reproduced as below:
> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 111s![memcg_test:2204]
> CPU: 0
On Wed 26-08-20 21:47:02, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when
> the target memcg doesn't have any reclaimable memory.
>
> It can be easily reproduced as below:
> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 111s![memcg_test:2204]
> CPU: 0 PID: 2204 Comm:
Hi Xunlei,
Xunlei Pang writes:
Add cond_resched() at the upper shrink_node_memcgs() to solve this
issue, and any other possible issue like meomry.min protection.
I understand the general intent of the patch, but could you clarify your
concern around memory protection?
We've met softlockup with "CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y", when
the target memcg doesn't have any reclaimable memory.
It can be easily reproduced as below:
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 111s![memcg_test:2204]
CPU: 0 PID: 2204 Comm: memcg_test Not tainted 5.9.0-rc2+ #12
Call Trace:
shri
6 matches
Mail list logo
