[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200721150024.GM4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:00:24 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
On Tue 21-07-20 15:17:49, Chris Down wrote:
> I understand the pragmatic considerations here, but I'm quite concerned
> about the maintainability and long-term ability to reason about a patch like
> this. For example, how do we know when this patch is safe to remove? Also,
> what other precedent does this set for us covering for poor userspace
> behaviour?
>
> Speaking as a systemd maintainer, if udev could be doing something better on
> these machines, we'd be more than receptive to help fix it. In general I am
> against explicit watchdog tweaking here because a.) there's potential to
> mask other problems, and b.) it seems like the kind of one-off trivia nobody
> is going to remember exists when doing complex debugging in future.
>
> Is there anything preventing this being remedied in udev, instead of the
> kernel?
Yes, I believe that there is a configuration to cap the maximum number
of workers. This is not my area but my understanding is that the maximum
is tuned based on available memory and/or cpus. We have been hit byt
this quite heavily on SLES. Maybe newer version of systemd have a better
tuning.
But, it seems that udev is just a messenger here. There is nothing
really fundamentally udev specific in the underlying problem unless I
miss something. It is quite possible that this could be triggered by
other userspace which happens to fire many workers at the same time and
condending on a shared page.
Not that I like this workaround in the first place but it seems that the
existing code allows very long wait chains and !PREEMPT kernels simply
do not have any scheduling point for a long time potentially. I believe
we should focus on that even if the systemd as the current trigger can
be tuned better. I do not insist on this patch, hence RFC, but I am
simply not seeing a much better, yet not convoluted, solution.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists