[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM2PR02MB0417ECD92733D0475C5358CCBDDD0@AM2PR02MB0417.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 10:37:43 +0000
From: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
CC: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/6] nohz: support PR_DATAPLANE_STRICT mode
> From: Andy Lutomirski [mailto:luto@...capital.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:29 AM
> To: Chris Metcalf
> Cc: Srivatsa S. Bhat; Paul E. McKenney; Frederic Weisbecker; Ingo Molnar;
> Rik van Riel; linux-doc@...r.kernel.org; Andrew Morton; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; Thomas Gleixner; Tejun Heo; Peter Zijlstra; Steven
> Rostedt; Christoph Lameter; Gilad Ben Yossef; Linux API
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] nohz: support PR_DATAPLANE_STRICT mode
>
> On May 8, 2015 11:44 PM, "Chris Metcalf" <cmetcalf@...hip.com> wrote:
> >
> > With QUIESCE mode, the task is in principle guaranteed not to be
> > interrupted by the kernel, but only if it behaves. In particular,
> > if it enters the kernel via system call, page fault, or any of
> > a number of other synchronous traps, it may be unexpectedly
> > exposed to long latencies. Add a simple flag that puts the process
> > into a state where any such kernel entry is fatal.
> >
> > To allow the state to be entered and exited, we add an internal
> > bit to current->dataplane_flags that is set when prctl() sets the
> > flags. That way, when we are exiting the kernel after calling
> > prctl() to forbid future kernel exits, we don't get immediately
> > killed.
>
> Is there any reason this can't already be addressed in userspace using
> /proc/interrupts or perf_events? ISTM the real goal here is to detect
> when we screw up and fail to avoid an interrupt, and killing the task
> seems like overkill to me.
>
> Also, can we please stop further torturing the exit paths?
So, I don't know if it is a practical suggestion or not, but would it better/easier to mark a pending signal on kernel entry for this case?
The upsides I see is that the user gets her notification (killing the task or just logging the event in a signal handler) and hopefully since return to userspace with a pending signal is already handled we don't need new code in the exit path?
Gilad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists