Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751982Ab3FYC3Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:29:25 -0400 Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:22590 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751092Ab3FYC3Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:29:24 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnQOABEAyVF5LPX0/2dsb2JhbABagwmDFrdqhSsEAYEEF3SCIwEBBScTHCMQCAMOCgklDwUlAyETiA27BxaOHIEdB4NjA5dCih+HJoMiKg Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:29:21 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Glauber Costa Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Subject: Re: linux-next: slab shrinkers: BUG at mm/list_lru.c:92 Message-ID: <20130625022921.GQ29376@dastard> References: <20130617151403.GA25172@localhost.localdomain> <20130617143508.7417f1ac9ecd15d8b2877f76@linux-foundation.org> <20130617223004.GB2538@localhost.localdomain> <20130618062623.GA20528@localhost.localdomain> <20130619071346.GA9545@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130619142801.GA21483@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130620141136.GA3351@localhost.localdomain> <20130620151201.GD27196@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130621090021.GB12424@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130623115127.GA7986@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130623115127.GA7986@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1537 Lines: 36 On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 03:51:29PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:00:21AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 20-06-13 17:12:01, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I am bisecting it again. It is quite tedious, though, because good case > > > is hard to be sure about. > > > > OK, so now I converged to 2d4fc052 (inode: convert inode lru list to generic lru > > list code.) in my tree and I have double checked it matches what is in > > the linux-next. This doesn't help much to pin point the issue I am > > afraid :/ > > > Can you revert this patch (easiest way ATM is to rewind your tree to a point > right before it) and apply the following patch? > > As Dave has mentioned, it is very likely that this bug was already there, we > were just not ever checking imbalances. The attached patch would tell us at > least if the imbalance was there before. If this is the case, I would suggest > turning the BUG condition into a WARN_ON_ONCE since we would be officially > not introducing any regression. It is no less of a bug, though, and we should > keep looking for it. We probably should do that BUG->WARN change anyway. BUG_ON is pretty obnoxious in places where we can probably continue on without much impact.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/