[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1409908448.5158.7.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:14:08 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Wu Zhangjin <falcon@...zu.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, hare@...e.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.de>,
Santosh Rastapur <santosh@...lsio.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@...rref.org>,
Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@...gotech.com>,
Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@...gotech.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...gotech.com>,
Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@...gotech.com>,
Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>,
Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>,
MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...gotech.com,
Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/6] kthread: warn on kill signal if not OOM
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 00:47 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:37:24PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > ...
> >> + /*
> >> + * I got SIGKILL, but wait for 60 more seconds for completion
> >> + * unless chosen by the OOM killer. This delay is there as a
> >> + * workaround for boot failure caused by SIGKILL upon device
> >> + * driver initialization timeout.
> >> + *
> >> + * N.B. this will actually let the thread complete regularly,
> >> + * wait_for_completion() will be used eventually, the 60 second
> >> + * try here is just to check for the OOM over that time.
> >> + */
> >> + WARN_ONCE(!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE),
> >> + "Got SIGKILL but not from OOM, if this issue is on probe use .driver.async_probe\n");
> >> + for (i = 0; i < 60 && !test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE); i++)
> >> + if (wait_for_completion_timeout(&done, HZ))
> >> + goto wait_done;
> >> +
> >
> > Ugh... Jesus, this is way too hacky, so now we fail on 90s timeout
> > instead of 30?
>
> Nope! I fell into the same trap and only with tons of patience by part
> of Tetsuo with me was I able to grok that the 60 seconds here are not
> for increasing the timeout, this is just time spent checking to ensure
> that the OOM wasn't the one who triggered the SIGKILL. Even if the
> drivers took eons it should be fine now, I tried it :D
>
> > Why do we even need this with the proposed async
> > probing changes?
>
> Ah -- well without it the way we "find" drivers that need this new
> "async feature" is by a bug report and folks saying their system can't
> boot, or they say their device doesn't come up. That's all. Tracing
> this to systemd and a timeout was one of the most ugliest things ever.
> There two insane bug reports you can go check:
>
> mptsas was the first:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1669550
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1297248
<quote>
(2) Currently systemd-udevd unconditionally sends SIGKILL upon hardcoded
30 seconds timeout. As a result, finit_module() of mptsas kernel
module receives SIGKILL when waiting for error handler thread to be
started.
</quote>
Hm. Why is this not a systemd-udevd bug for running around killing
stuff when it has no idea whether progress is being made or not?
-Mike
--
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