[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1403153545.1225.8.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:52:25 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 20:38 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:13:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:42:00PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > I still think it's totally the wrong direction to pollute so
> > > many fast paths with this obscure debugging check workaround
> > > unconditionally.
> >
> > OOM prevention should count for something, I would hope.
>
> OOM in what scenario? This is getting bizarre.
>
> If something keeps looping forever in the kernel creating
> RCU callbacks without any real quiescent states it's simply broken.
Typical problem we faced in the past is in exit() path when multi
thousands of files/sockets are rcu-freed, and qhimark is hit.
Huge latency alerts, as freeing 10000+ items takes a while (about 70 ns
per item...)
Maybe close_files() should use a
cond_resched_and_keep_rcu_queues_small_please() ;)
--
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