[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.1-pre10 deadlock (Re: ps hang in 241-pre10)

On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 27 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > What was the trace of this? Just curious, the below case outlined by
> > > Linus should be pretty generic, but I'd still like to know what
> > > can lead to this condition.
> >
> > It was posted on linux-kernel - I don't save the dang things because I
> > have too much in my "archives" as is ;)
> Ok I see it now, confused wrt the different threads...
> > > Good spotting. Actually I see one more problem with it too. If
> > > we've started batching (under heavy I/O of course), we could
> > > splice the pending list and wake up X number of sleepers, but
> > > there's a) no guarentee that these sleepers will actually get
> > > the requests if new ones keep flooding in
> >
> > (a) is ok. They'll go back to sleep - it's a loop waiting for requests..
> My point is not that it's broken, but it will favor new comers
> instead of tasks having blocked on a free slot already. So it
> would still be nice to get right.
> > > and b) no guarentee
> > > that X sleepers require X request slots.
> >
> > Well, IF they are sleeping (and thus, if the wake_up_nr() will trigger on
> > them), they _will_ use a request. I don't think we have to worry about
> > that. At most we will wake up "too many" - we'll wake up processes even
> > though they end up not being able to get a request anyway because somebody
> > else got to it first. And that's ok. It's the "wake up too few" that
> > causes trouble, and I think that will be fixed by my suggestion.
> Yes they may end up sleeing right away again as per the above a) case
> for instance. The logic now is 'we have X free slots now, wake up
> x sleepers' where it instead should be 'we have X free slots now,
> wake up people until the free list is exhausted'.
> > Now, I'd worred if somebody wants several requests at the same time, and
> > doesn't feed them to the IO layer until it has gotten all of them. In that
> > case, you can get starvation with many people having "reserved" their
> > requests, and there not be enough free requests around to actually ever
> > wake anybody up again. But the regular IO paths do not do this: they will
> > all allocate a request and just submit it immediately, no "reservation".
> Right, the I/O path doesn't do this and it would seem more appropriate
> to have such users use their own requests instead of eating from
> the internal pool.
> --
> * Jens Axboe <>
> * SuSE Labs
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> Please read the FAQ at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.032 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site