[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1302692799.2035.17.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:06:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/21] sched: Change the ttwu success details
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 12:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:23 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > and workqueue wakeups, and I doubt extra wakeups will cause lockups.
>
> Damn assumptions ;-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2447,7 +2447,7 @@ static inline void ttwu_post_activation(
> }
> #endif
> /* if a worker is waking up, notify workqueue */
> - if ((p->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER) && success)
> + if (p->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER)
> wq_worker_waking_up(p, cpu_of(rq));
> }
>
>
> Appears to be sufficient to cause the lockup, so somehow the whole
> workqueue stuff relies on the fact that waking a TASK_(UN)INTERRUPTIBLE
> task that hasn't been dequeued yet isn't a wakeup.
>
> Tejun any quick clues as to why and how to cure this?
>
> /me goes read that stuff
OK, so wq_worker_waking_up() does an atomic_inc() that wants to be
balanced against the atomic_dec() in wq_worker_sleeping(), which is only
called when we dequeue things.
--
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