Em Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:34:37AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:14:27AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > Em Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 07:48:23AM -0600, David Ahern escreveu: > > > On 4/8/15 7:45 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > >>I also noticed that if I set /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid to -1 > > > >>to run it as !root, then the problem "goes away", which I think probably > > > >>is explained by, as !root, not being able to parse some of the /proc > > > >>files for existing threads and thus not triggering the bug, still > > > >>investigating... > > > > > > odd. because this has nothing to do with perf_events; it is just walking > > > /proc and for the ppid adds a strstr and atoi(str). Something else is at > > > play. I'll take a look. > > > > You are correcly setting the pid values, that will have effects when > > using findnew, i.e. threads will be added to the rbtree, which causes > > allocations, etc I.e. it is probably triggering a dormant bug > > Sitting there, will stop chrome to see if the problem is triggered by it...
Yeah, stopping chrome gets the system to a state that doesn't make it trigger the bug, why it works when your patch is reverted still a puzzle... - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
