Messages in this thread | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: [rfc] lru_add_drain_all() vs isolation | Date | Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:41:36 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 19:06 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 08:56 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 10:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [ 774.651779] SysRq : Show Blocked State > > > > > > [ 774.655770] task PC stack pid father > > > > > > [ 774.655770] evolution.bin D ffff8800bc1575f0 0 7349 6459 0x00000000 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] ffff8800bc3c9d68 0000000000000086 ffff8800015d9340 ffff8800bb91b780 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] 000000000000dd28 ffff8800bc3c9fd8 0000000000013340 0000000000013340 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] 00000000000000fd ffff8800015d9340 ffff8800bc1575f0 ffff8800bc157888 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] Call Trace: > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff812c4a11>] schedule_timeout+0x2d/0x20c > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff812c4891>] wait_for_common+0xde/0x155 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff8103f1cd>] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0x14 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff810c0e63>] ? lru_add_drain_per_cpu+0x0/0x10 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff810c0e63>] ? lru_add_drain_per_cpu+0x0/0x10 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff812c49ab>] wait_for_completion+0x1d/0x1f > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff8105fdf5>] flush_work+0x7f/0x93 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff8105f870>] ? wq_barrier_func+0x0/0x14 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff81060109>] schedule_on_each_cpu+0xb4/0xed > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff810c0c78>] lru_add_drain_all+0x15/0x17 > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff810d1dbd>] sys_mlock+0x2e/0xde > > > > > > [ 774.676008] [<ffffffff8100bc1b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, something like the below (prone to explode since its utterly > > > > > untested) should (mostly) fix that one case. Something similar needs to > > > > > be done for pretty much all machine wide workqueue thingies, possibly > > > > > also flush_workqueue(). > > > > > > > > Can you please explain reproduce way and problem detail? > > > > > > > > AFAIK, mlock() call lru_add_drain_all() _before_ grab semaphoe. Then, > > > > it doesn't cause any deadlock. > > > > > > Suppose you have 2 cpus, cpu1 is busy doing a SCHED_FIFO-99 while(1), > > > cpu0 does mlock()->lru_add_drain_all(), which does > > > schedule_on_each_cpu(), which then waits for all cpus to complete the > > > work. Except that cpu1, which is busy with the RT task, will never run > > > keventd until the RT load goes away. > > > > > > This is not so much an actual deadlock as a serious starvation case. > > > > This seems flush_work vs RT-thread problem, not only lru_add_drain_all(). > > Why other workqueue flusher doesn't affect this issue? > > flush_work() will only flush workqueues on which work has been enqueued > as Oleg pointed out. > > The problem is with lru_add_drain_all() enqueueing work on all > workqueues.
Thank you for kindly explanation. I gradually become to understand this isssue. Yes, lru_add_drain_all() use schedule_on_each_cpu() and it have following code
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) flush_work(per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu));
However, I don't think your approach solve this issue. lru_add_drain_all() flush lru_add_pvecs and lru_rotate_pvecs.
lru_add_pvecs is accounted when - lru move e.g. read(2), write(2), page fault, vmscan, page migration, et al
lru_rotate_pves is accounted when - page writeback
IOW, if RT-thread call write(2) syscall or page fault, we face the same problem. I don't think we can assume RT-thread don't make page fault....
hmm, this seems difficult problem. I guess any mm code should use schedule_on_each_cpu(). I continue to think this issue awhile.
> There is nothing that makes lru_add_drain_all() the only such site, its > the one Mike posted to me, and my patch was a way to deal with that.
Well, schedule_on_each_cpu() is very limited used function. Practically we can ignore other caller.
> I also explained that its not only RT related in that the HPC folks also > want to avoid unneeded work -- for them its not starvation but a > performance issue.
I think you talked about OS jitter issue. if so, I don't think this issue make serious problem. OS jitter mainly be caused by periodic action (e.g. tick update, timer, vmstat update). it's because little-delay x plenty-times = large-delay
lru_add_drain_all() is called from very limited point. e.g. mlock, shm-lock, page-migration, memory-hotplug. all caller is not periodic.
> In generic we should avoid doing work when there is no work to be done.
Probably. but I'm not sure ;)
| |