[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101201150333.fa4b8955.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:03:33 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 21:38:18 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> It shows that
>
> 1) io_schedule_timeout(200ms) always return immediately for iostat,
> forming a busy loop. How can this happen? When iostat received
> some signal? Then we may have to break out of the loop on catching
> signals. Note that I already have
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> break;
> in the balance_dirty_pages() loop. Obviously that's not enough.
Presumably the calling task has singal_pending().
Using TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in balance_dirty_pages() seems wrong. If it's
going to do that then it must break out if signal_pending(), otherwise
it's pretty much guaranteed to degenerate into a busywait loop. Plus
we *do* want these processes to appear in D state and to contribute to
load average.
So it should be TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
--
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