Messages in this thread | | | From | "Chen, Kenneth W" <> | Subject | RE: [patch] sched: improve pinned task handling again! | Date | Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:46:14 -0700 |
| |
Siddha, Suresh B wrote on Friday, April 01, 2005 8:05 PM > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:11:20PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > How important is this? Any application to real workloads? Even if > > not, I agree it would be nice to improve this more. I don't know > > if I really like this approach - I guess due to what it adds to > > fastpaths. > > Ken initially observed with older kernels(2.4 kernel with Ingo's sched), > it was happening with few hundred processes. 2.6 is not that bad and it > improved with recent fixes. It is not very important. We want to raise > the flag and see if we can comeup with a decent solution.
The livelock is observed with an in-house stress test suite. The original intent of that test is remotely connected to stress the kernel. It is by accident that it triggered a kernel issue. Though, we are now worried that this can be used as a DOS attack.
Nick Piggin wrote on Friday, April 01, 2005 7:11 PM > > Now presumably if the all_pinned logic is working properly in the > > first place, and it is correctly causing balancing to back-off, you > > could tweak that a bit to avoid livelocks? Perhaps the all_pinned > > case should back off faster than the usual doubling of the interval, > > and be allowed to exceed max_interval?
This sounds plausible, though my first try did not yield desired result (i.e., still hangs the kernel, I might missed a few things here and there).
- 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/
| |