Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | | Date | Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:07:49 +0100 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2 v4] softlockup: check all tasks in hung_task |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:34:53 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: check all tasks in hung_task > > > > Impact: extend the scope of hung-task checks > > > > A nanonit:
agreed.
> > +static const int hung_task_batching = 1024; > > static const definitions look pretty but they're a bit misleading. > > > static void check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(unsigned long timeout) > > { > > + int batch_count = hung_task_batching; > > int max_count = sysctl_hung_task_check_count; > > unsigned long now = get_timestamp(); > > struct task_struct *g, *t; > > @@ -131,6 +159,13 @@ static void check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(unsigned long timeout) > > do_each_thread(g, t) { > > if (!--max_count) > > goto unlock; > > + if (!--batch_count) { > > + batch_count = hung_task_batching; > > + rcu_lock_break(g, t); > > + /* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */ > > + if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD) > > + goto unlock; > > + } > > /* use "==" to skip the TASK_KILLABLE tasks waiting on NFS */ > > if (t->state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) > > check_hung_task(t, now, timeout); > > The reader of this area of the code will expect that hung_task_batching > is a variable. It _looks_ like the value of that variable can be altered > at any time by some other thread. It _looks_ like this code will explode > if someone has accidentally set hung_task_batching to zero, etc. > > But none of that is actually true, because hung_task_batching is, surprisingly, > a compile-time constant. > > All this misleadingness would be fixed if it were called > HUNG_TASK_BATCHING. But then it wouldn't be pretty.
i keep running into this paradox myself too. Explicit const C types are the perfect replacements for defines, but they create confusion by making it look like a variable.
I tend to agree with you that avoiding the confusion is more important than having a type - it's not like we are about to have any type related troubles here. So i amended the commit in the way below - does that look good to you?
Ingo
----------------> From 9d03ba30018a546d20d4aa8bba58978492c82520 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@google.com> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 20:35:48 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: check all tasks in hung_task MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Impact: extend the scope of hung-task checks
Changed the default value of hung_task_check_count to PID_MAX_LIMIT. hung_task_batch_count added to put an upper bound on the critical section. Every hung_task_batch_count checks, the rcu lock is never held for a too long time.
Keeping the critical section small minimizes time preemption is disabled and keeps rcu grace periods small.
To prevent following a stale pointer, get_task_struct is called on g and t. To verify that g and t have not been unhashed while outside the critical section, the task states are checked.
The design was proposed by Frédéric Weisbecker.
Signed-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@google.com> Suggested-by: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> --- kernel/hung_task.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/hung_task.c b/kernel/hung_task.c index ba8ccd4..3c6190b 100644 --- a/kernel/hung_task.c +++ b/kernel/hung_task.c @@ -17,9 +17,18 @@ #include <linux/sysctl.h> /* - * Have a reasonable limit on the number of tasks checked: + * The number of tasks checked: */ -unsigned long __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_check_count = 1024; +unsigned long __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_check_count = PID_MAX_LIMIT; + +/* + * Limit number of tasks checked in a batch. + * + * This value controls the preemptibility of khungtaskd since preemption + * is disabled during the critical section. It also controls the size of + * the RCU grace period. So it needs to be upper-bound. + */ +#define HUNG_TASK_BATCHING 1024; /* * Zero means infinite timeout - no checking done: @@ -110,6 +119,24 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long now, } /* + * To avoid extending the RCU grace period for an unbounded amount of time, + * periodically exit the critical section and enter a new one. + * + * For preemptible RCU it is sufficient to call rcu_read_unlock in order + * exit the grace period. For classic RCU, a reschedule is required. + */ +static void rcu_lock_break(struct task_struct *g, struct task_struct *t) +{ + get_task_struct(g); + get_task_struct(t); + rcu_read_unlock(); + cond_resched(); + rcu_read_lock(); + put_task_struct(t); + put_task_struct(g); +} + +/* * Check whether a TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE does not get woken up for * a really long time (120 seconds). If that happens, print out * a warning. @@ -117,6 +144,7 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long now, static void check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(unsigned long timeout) { int max_count = sysctl_hung_task_check_count; + int batch_count = HUNG_TASK_BATCHING; unsigned long now = get_timestamp(); struct task_struct *g, *t; @@ -131,6 +159,13 @@ static void check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(unsigned long timeout) do_each_thread(g, t) { if (!--max_count) goto unlock; + if (!--batch_count) { + batch_count = HUNG_TASK_BATCHING; + rcu_lock_break(g, t); + /* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */ + if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD) + goto unlock; + } /* use "==" to skip the TASK_KILLABLE tasks waiting on NFS */ if (t->state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) check_hung_task(t, now, timeout); -- 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/
|  |