[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090203205609.GA9581@google.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:56:09 -0800
From: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
mbligh@...gle.com, thockin@...gle.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2 v3] softlockup: check all tasks in hung_task
Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
>
> * Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > + if (sysctl_hung_task_check_count && !(max_count--)) {
> > + max_count = sysctl_hung_task_check_count;
>
> just a minor nit, why not:
>
> !--max_count
>
> ?
>
> That way we can lose the parenthesis and we'll also not overcount and wont
> let max_count go down to -1.
>
> Ingo
Good question. Yeah, there's really nothing about this patch that requires
changing the !--max_count test.
Changed the condition back to a simple !--max_count test.
---
Instead of checking only hung_task_check_count tasks, all tasks are checked.
hung_task_check_count is still used to put an upper bound on the critical
section. Every hung_task_check_count checks, the critical section is
refreshed. Keeping the critical section small minimizes time preemption is
disabled and keeps rcu grace periods small.
To prevent following a stale pointer, get_task_struct is called on g and t.
To verify that g and t have not been unhashed while outside the critical
section, the task states are checked.
The design was proposed by Frédéric Weisbecker.
Frédéric Weisbecker (fweisbec@...il.com) wrote:
>
> Instead of having this arbitrary limit of tasks, why not just
> lurk the need_resched() and then schedule if it needs too.
>
> I know that sounds a bit racy, because you will have to release the
> tasklist_lock and
> a lot of things can happen in the task list until you become resched.
> But you can do a get_task_struct() on g and t before your thread is
> going to sleep and then put them
> when it is awaken.
> Perhaps some tasks will disappear or be appended in the list before g
> and t, but that doesn't really matter:
> if they disappear, they didn't lockup, and if they were appended, they
> are not enough cold to be analyzed :-)
>
> This way you can drop the arbitrary limit of task number given by the user....
>
> Frederic.
>
Signed-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>
---
kernel/hung_task.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/hung_task.c b/kernel/hung_task.c
index a841db3..f47eea4 100644
--- a/kernel/hung_task.c
+++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
@@ -109,6 +109,24 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long now,
panic("hung_task: blocked tasks");
}
+ /*
+ * To avoid extending the RCU grace period for an unbounded amount of time,
+ * periodically exit the critical section and enter a new one.
+ *
+ * For preemptible RCU it is sufficient to call rcu_read_unlock in order
+ * exit the grace period. For classic RCU, a reschedule is required.
+ */
+static void check_hung_rcu_refresh(struct task_struct *g, struct task_struct *t)
+{
+ get_task_struct(g);
+ get_task_struct(t);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ cond_resched();
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ put_task_struct(t);
+ put_task_struct(g);
+}
+
/*
* Check whether a TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE does not get woken up for
* a really long time (120 seconds). If that happens, print out
@@ -129,8 +147,13 @@ static void check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(unsigned long timeout)
rcu_read_lock();
do_each_thread(g, t) {
- if (!--max_count)
- goto unlock;
+ if (!--max_count) {
+ max_count = sysctl_hung_task_check_count;
+ check_hung_rcu_refresh(g, t);
+ /* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */
+ if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD)
+ goto unlock;
+ }
/* use "==" to skip the TASK_KILLABLE tasks waiting on NFS */
if (t->state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
check_hung_task(t, now, timeout);
--
1.5.4.5
--
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