[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081201201703.GA15884@colo.lackof.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:17:04 -0700
From: dann frazier <dannf@...com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, eteo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix soft lockups/OOM issues w/ unix garbage collector
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 03:32:43PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: dann frazier <dannf@...nf.org>
> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:04:02 -0700
>
> > This is an implementation of David Miller's suggested fix in:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470201
> >
> > It has been updated to use wait_event() instead of
> > wait_event_interruptible().
> >
> > Paraphrasing the description from the above report, it makes sendmsg()
> > block while UNIX garbage collection is in progress. This avoids a
> > situation where child processes continue to queue new FDs over a
> > AF_UNIX socket to a parent which is in the exit path and running
> > garbage collection on these FDs. This contention can result in soft
> > lockups and oom-killing of unrelated processes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: dann frazier <dannf@...com>
>
> Applied, thanks a lot Dann.
I was asked if this patch may introduce blocking during operations on
non-blocking sockets. Should we update wait_for_unix_gc (and its
callers) to something like this?
int wait_for_unix_gc(bool can_block)
{
if (!can_block)
return gc_in_progress ? -EWOULDBLOCK : 0;
wait_event(unix_gc_wait, gc_in_progress == false);
return 0;
}
--
dann frazier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists