[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DB0ECEC.7090608@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:50:20 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 12/15] sched: maintain throttled rqs as a list
Hi Paul,
(2011/03/23 12:03), Paul Turner wrote:
> @@ -1434,7 +1435,11 @@ static void throttle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_r
> if (!se)
> rq->nr_running += task_delta;
>
> + raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
> cfs_rq->throttled = 1;
> + list_add_tail_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
> +
> cfs_rq->throttled_timestamp = rq_of(cfs_rq)->clock;
> }
>
Though I'm looking forward to see your updates soon, just FYI,
I found that somehow throttle_cfs_rq() was called with already
throttled cfs_rq.
So it breaks list throttled_cfs_rq by repeating list_add_tail_rcu()
and results in lockups like that Bharata and Xiao already reported.
There should be better fix, but following first aid to put_prev_entity()
worked for me:
- if (!within_bandwidth(cfs_rq))
+ if (!within_bandwidth(cfs_rq) && !cfs_rq->throttled)
throttle_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
else
return_cfs_rq_quota(cfs_rq);
I believe you can do better next time.
Thanks,
H.Seto
--
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