Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 07 May 2005 17:12:28 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: Scheduler: Spinning until tasks are STOPPED |
| |
Yuly Finkelberg wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I sent a message regarding this issue earlier, but after re-reading > it, I realized that it wasn't very clear. Hopefully, this will > clarify things a little bit: > > I have a strange scheduling issue: a bunch of worker tasks are all waiting > on a wait queue. Each task is woken up by the preceeding, does some work, > wakes up the next one, and then sends a SIGSTOP to itself. The last task however > does not stop itself, but instead yield()s until all tasks have reached state > TASK_STOPPED. > > The code looks like this (irrelevant parts cut out): > ... > ret = wait_event_interruptible(waitq, next_in_line == myself); > ... > (some work) > ... > next_in_line = next; > ret = wakeup_next_one(); > if (!last_one) > send_sig(SIGSTOP, current, 1); > else > spin_until_all_stopped() > > When run with 50 tasks, normally this works well. However sometimes one of the > tasks (never the last one) gets stuck between calling wakeup_next_one() and > between sending the signal. It accumulates system time, and its stack looks > like (no pending signals, ti_flags is clear): > > c55e7ad0 00000086 c55e6000 c55e7a94 00000046 c55e6000 c55e7ad0 c0109c2d > 00000000 c0497800 00000001 d38da344 0013bc9c c5632840 00071931 d3d93161 > 0013bc9c c55d546c c05d3960 0000270f c05d3960 c55e6000 c0106f25 c05d3960 > > Call Trace: > [<c0106f25>] need_resched+0x27/0x32 > > (yes, this is not a mistake: this is ALL the stack reported by show_stack()) > > Normally the spinning task will magically get released after "a while", where > few seconds < "a while" < 10 minutes and sometimes even longer. > So the mystery is - > 1. Why does the task spin for so long ? > 2. Where does it spin ? (the kernel stack doesn't hint on anything...) > 3. How can I find out #2 ? > 4. How to fix it ? > 5. Is there a better way to make sure a specific task is STOPPED ? > > Currently running 2.6.8.1 and 2.6.9 (UP, PREEMPT). I'd appreciate any > help here...
You're doing this in the *kernel*? It sounds like it should be done in userspace or done a different way (ie. not with 50 tasks).
And using signals and spinning on yield for synchronisation and process control in the kernel like this is fairly crazy.
Can't you use a semaphore or something?
- 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/
| |