[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120111155658.GB26659@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:56:59 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] kernel freezes with latest tree
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 10:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Maybe adding a few more NEED_BREAK bits
> > and making it a counter and overflowing it into ABORT might be good.
> >
> >
>
> I could reproduce and confirm something like the below makes
> the hang go-away. I haven't managed to fully understand why
> we're stuck though because we do release the runqueue locks
> and re-enable IRQs on this lock-break.
Well, what happens if every CPU runs load_balance() and we keep
triggering:
if (loops++ > sysctl_sched_nr_migrate) {
*lb_flags |= LBF_NEED_BREAK;
break;
}
in this case load_balance() will do the retry:
if (lb_flags & LBF_NEED_BREAK) {
lb_flags &= ~LBF_NEED_BREAK;
goto redo;
}
but the retry starts the loop again:
list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &busiest_cfs_rq->tasks, se.group_node) {
so nobody is able to make progress: livelock/lockup.
( This also explains why i was unable to see this in my
randomized testing: my tests never extreme enough to trigger
the sysctl_sched_nr_migrate threshold. )
Thanks,
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