[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YsvuwfeY/dSngl8c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:34:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mike Stowell <mstowell@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] locking/rtmutex: Limit # of lock stealing for non-RT
waiters
On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 09:59:16AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Commit 48eb3f4fcfd3 ("locking/rtmutex: Implement equal priority lock
> stealing") allows unlimited number of lock stealing's for non-RT
> tasks. That can lead to lock starvation of non-RT top waiter tasks if
> there is a constant incoming stream of non-RT lockers. This can cause
> rcu_preempt self-detected stall or even task lockup in PREEMPT_RT kernel.
> For example,
>
> [77107.424943] rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU
> [ 1249.921363] INFO: task systemd:2178 blocked for more than 622 seconds.
>
> Avoiding this problem and ensuring forward progress by limiting the
> number of times that a lock can be stolen from each waiter. This patch
> sets a threshold of 32. That number is arbitrary and can be changed
> if needed.
>
Why not do the same thing we do for regular mutexes?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists