[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130103183251.GA10113@dcvr.yhbt.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:32:51 +0000
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: ppoll() stuck on POLLIN while TCP peer is sending
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 20:47 +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> wrote:
> > > [1] my full setup is very strange.
> > >
> > > Other than the FUSE component I forgot to mention, little depends on
> > > the kernel. With all this, the standalone toosleepy can get stuck.
> > > I'll try to reproduce it with less...
> >
> > I just confirmed my toosleepy processes will get stuck while just
> > doing "rsync -a" between local disks. So this does not depend on
> > sendfile or FUSE to reproduce.
> > --
>
> How do you tell your 'toosleepy' is stuck ?
My original post showed it stuck with strace (in ppoll + send).
I only strace after seeing it's not using any CPU in top.
http://mid.gmane.org/20121228014503.GA5017@dcvr.yhbt.net
(lsof also confirmed the ppoll/send sockets were peers)
> If reading its output, you should change its logic, there is no
> guarantee the recv() will deliver exactly 16384 bytes each round.
>
> With the following patch, I cant reproduce the 'apparent stuck'
Right, the output is just an approximation and the logic there
was bogus.
Thanks for looking at this.
--
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