Re: [cgroup or VFS ?] WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:636mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2()

From: Al Viro
Date: Thu Feb 12 2009 - 01:25:03 EST


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:10:37PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Li Zefan wrote:
> > Al Viro wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 12:40:46AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>> Thread 1:
> >>>> for ((; ;))
> >>>> {
> >>>> mount -t cgroup -o cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
> >>>> mkdir /mnt/0 > /dev/null 2>&1
> >>>> rmdir /mnt/0 > /dev/null 2>&1
> >>>> umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Thread 2:
> >>>> {
> >>>> mount -t cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
> >>>> umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
> >>>> }
> >> How cute... Same mountpoint in both, so these mount(2) will sometimes
> >> fail (cgroup picks the same sb on the same options, AFAICS) and fail
> >> silently due to these redirects...
> >>
> >> That's a lovely way to stress-test a large part of ro-bind stuff *and*
> >> umount()-related code. Could you do C equivalent of the above (just
> >> the same syscalls in loop, nothing fancier) and do time-stamped strace?
> >>
> >
> > Sure, I'll write a C version and try to reproduce the warning.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, the C equivalent can't reproduce the warning, I've run the
> test for the whole night. :( While using the script, often I can trigger
> the warning in several mins.

Ho-hum... I wonder if we are hitting cgroup_clone() in all that fun...
Could you
a) add a printk to that sucker
b) independently from (a), see if wrapping these syscalls into
pid = fork();
if (!pid) {
[make a syscall, print something]
exit(0);
} else if (pid > 0) {
waitpid(pid, NULL, 0);
}
and see what happens...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/