[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090121111314.GA23469@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:13:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>
Cc: fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rientjes@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, thockin@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] softlockup: remove hung_task_check_count
* Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com> wrote:
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> do_each_thread(g, t) {
> - if (!--max_count)
> - goto unlock;
> + if (!--max_count) {
> + /*
> + * Drop the lock every once in a while and resched if
> + * necessary. Don't want to hold the lock too long.
> + */
> + get_task_struct(t);
> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> + max_count = HUNG_TASK_CHECK_COUNT;
> + if (need_resched())
> + schedule();
> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + put_task_struct(t);
> + /*
> + * t was unlinked from tasklist. Can't continue in this
> + * case. Exit and try again next time.
> + */
> + if (t->state == TASK_DEAD)
> + goto unlock;
> + }
firstly, this bit should move into a helper function. Also, why dont you
do the need_resched() check first (it's very lighweight) - and thus only
do the heavy ops (get-task-struct & tasklist_lock unlock) if that is set?
But most importantly, isnt the logic above confused? --max_count will
reach zero exactly once, and then we'll loop for a long time.
Ingo
--
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