lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8-rc4-O7

* Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:

> In some of the traces, like this one:
>
> http://krustophenia.net/testresults.php?dataset=2.6.8-rc4-bk3-O7#/var/www/2.6.8-rc4-bk3-O7/mount_reiserfs_latency_trace.txt
>
> there are calls to voluntary_resched. How is this possible? Does it
> mean that we called voluntary_resched while holding a spinlock, where
> we needed to call voluntary_preempt_lock(&foo_lock), and thus failed
> to reschedule?

voluntary_resched() was probably called as part of the might_sleep_if()
done in mm/slab.c. If you have CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP enabled then
the kernel should have complained about 'Debug: sleeping function ...'.
but what i think happened here is that reiserfs still uses
lock_kernel()/unlock_kernel() quite alot (eg. ext3 or xfs doesnt), which
from a preemptability POV is just as much of a critical section as a
spinlock, but processes can sleep (the scheduler auto-releases and
auto-reacquires the big kernel lock).

Ingo

--- linux/kernel/sched.c.orig
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3210,11 +3210,11 @@ __setup("voluntary-preempt=", voluntary_

int __sched voluntary_resched(void)
{
- if (kernel_preemption || !voluntary_preemption)
- return 0;
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP
__might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__);
#endif
+ if (kernel_preemption || !voluntary_preemption)
+ return 0;
/*
* The system_state check is somewhat ugly but we might be
* called during early boot when we are not yet ready to reschedule.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site