[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081201.131646.88364757.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:16:46 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dannf@...com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, eteo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix soft lockups/OOM issues w/ unix garbage collector
From: dann frazier <dannf@...com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:17:04 -0700
> 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?
No, it's just like waiting for a GFP_KERNEL memory allocation.
Non-blocking doesn't mean "never will sleep".
--
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