[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070819201012.GA113@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:10:12 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 5/5] exec: RT sub-thread can livelock and monopolize CPU on exec
On 08/19, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > The group_leader can sleep before it enters exit_notify(). In that case
> > wait_task_inactive() returns, and we still need some polling to wait for
> > EXIT_ZOMBIE.
>
> It could be a loop as now with yield. It's still polling, but only one
> poll per wakeup of the target.
I guess I misunderstand you. Do you mean
de_thread:
/*
* Wait for the thread group leader to be a zombie.
* It should already be zombie at this point, most
* of the time.
*/
while (leader->exit_state != EXIT_ZOMBIE)
wait_task_inactive(leader);
? This becomes a busy-wait loop if the leader sleeps, wait_task_inactive()
doesn't sleep/yield in this case. Not good.
> > Yes sure. But in any case I think we should avoid polling, we need some
> > notification from exit_notify().
>
> Indeed.
This means we should put something in exit_notify(), like this patch does.
It could be simplified a bit, we don't in fact need a negative ->notify_count,
we can tolerate a false wakeup. We can even skip the "thread_group_leader()"
check for the same reason.
(Of course, we can also add wait_queue_head_t to ->signal, but I don't think
you have this in mind).
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