[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070816160309.GB213@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:03:09 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Dan Aloni <da-x@...atomic.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tty_io.c: don't use flush_scheduled_work()
On 08/16, Dan Aloni wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 07:37:49PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I don't know how to test this patch, the ack/nack from maintainer is wanted.
> >
> > flush_scheduled_work() is evil and should be avoided. Change tty_set_ldisc()
> > and release_dev() to use cancel_delayed_work_sync/cancel_work_sync.
> >
> > I am not sure we really need to call do_tty_hangup() when cancel_work_sync()
> > returns true, but this matches the current behaviour.
>
> I also noticed this problem recently with 2.6.22, on a 2-CPU box where there
> was one SCHED_RR userspace process stuck in a busy loop. The box was completely
> responsive but had this annoyance where all tty closings were stuck in
> flush_scheduled_work(). It's especially noticable when you ssh to the machine
> and then try to log out.
cancel_work_sync(work) can hang too if some SCHED_RR userspace process does not
relinquish CPU, but the probability is much lower (it should preempt work->func
of that work_struct).
see also http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118115098120503.
Oleg.
-
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