[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:58:50 -0800 (PST)
From: David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'm also not sure if the bug ever happens with preemption disabled.
> Sasha, was that you who reported that you cannot reproduce it without
> preemption? It strikes me that there's a race condition in
> __cond_resched() wrt preemption, for example: we do
>
> __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> __schedule();
> __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
>
> and in between the __schedule() and __preempt_count_sub(), if an
> interrupt comes in and wakes up some important process, it won't
> reschedule (because preemption is active), but then we enable
> preemption again and don't check whether we should reschedule (again),
> and we just go on our merry ways.
>
> Now, I don't see how that could really matter for a long time -
> returning to user space will check need_resched, and sleeping will
> obviously force a reschedule anyway, so these kinds of races should at
> most delay things by just a tiny amount,
If the machine has NOHZ and has a cpu bound userspace task, it could take quite
a while before userspace would trigger a reschedule (at least if I've understood
the comments on this thread properly)
David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists