[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345581470.2815.14.camel@falcor.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:37:50 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
". James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: add a scheduling point in task_work_run()
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 15:05 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> It seems commit 4a9d4b02 (switch fput to task_work_add) reintroduced
> the problem addressed in commit 944be0b2 (close_files(): add scheduling
> point)
>
> If a server process with a lot of files (say 2 million tcp sockets)
> is killed, we can spend a lot of time in task_work_run() and trigger
> a soft lockup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> ---
> kernel/task_work.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c
> index 91d4e17..d320d44 100644
> --- a/kernel/task_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/task_work.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ void task_work_run(void)
> p = q->next;
> q->func(q);
> q = p;
> + cond_resched();
> }
> }
> }
We're here, because fput() called schedule_work() to delay the last
fput(). The execution needs to take place before the syscall returns to
userspace. Need to read __schedule()... Do you know if cond_resched()
can guarantee that it will be executed before the return to userspace?
thanks,
Mimi
--
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