On 02.07.20 06:48, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:48 PM Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Btw if we want to backport the problem but can't blame a specific commit,
>> we can always use something like "Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> [3.1+]".
>
> Sure, but if we don't know which is the right commit to blame, then how
> do we know which stable version should the patch target? :)
We run into a similar issue here once we made an update from the 5.4.41 to the
5.4.44 stable kernel. This patch addresses the issue, at least we are running
stable at >17 hours uptime with this patch, whereas we ran into issues normally
at <6 hour uptime without this patch.
That update included newly the commit 090e28b229af92dc5b ("netprio_cgroup: Fix
unlimited memory leak of v2 cgroups") which this patch originally mentions as
"Fixes", whereas the other mentioned possible culprit 4bfc0bb2c60e2f4c ("bpf:
decouple the lifetime of cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself") was included with 5.2
here, and did *not* made problems here.
So, while the real culprit may be something else, a mix of them, or even more
complex, the race is at least triggered way more frequently with the
090e28b229af92dc5b ("netprio_cgroup: Fix unlimited memory leak of v2 cgroups")
one or, for the sake of mentioning, possibly also something else from the
v5.4.41..v5.4.44 commit range - I did not looked into that in detail yet.
>
> I am open to all options here, including not backporting to stable at all.
As said, the stable-5.4.y tree profits from having this patch here, so there's
that.
Also, FWIW:
Tested-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lampre...@proxmox.com>
