Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM | From | utz lehmann <> | Date | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:35:37 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 13:08 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > utz lehmann wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 16:25 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 22:07 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:04:26PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: > >>> > >>>>(Probably, this simplistic analysis misses some other, more subtle, > >>>>factors.) > >>> > >>>I think you can do nasty things to the locks held by those threads too > >>> > >>> > >>>>RT threads should not do FS writes of their own. But, a badly broken > >>>>or malicious one could, I suppose. So, that might provide a mechanism > >>>>for losing more data than usual. Is that what you had in mind? > >>> > >>>basically yes. > >>>note that "FS writes" can come from various things, including library calls > >>>made and such. But I think you got my point; even though it might seem a bit > >>>theoretical it sure is unpleasant. > >>> > >> > >>I added Con to the cc: because this thread is starting to converge with > >>an email discussion we've been having. > >> > >>The basic issue is that the current semantics of SCHED_FIFO seem make > >>the deadlock/data corruption due to runaway RT thread issue difficult. > >>The obvious solution is a new scheduling class equivalent to SCHED_FIFO > >>but with a mechanism for the kernel to demote the offending thread to > >>SCHED_OTHER in an emergency. The problem can be solved in userspace > >>with a SCHED_FIFO watchdog thread that runs at a higher RT priority than > >>all other RT processes. > >> > >>This all seems to imply that introducing an rlimit for MAX_RT_PRIO is an > >>excellent solution. The RT watchdog thread could run as root, and the > >>rlimit would be used to ensure than even nonroot users in the RT group > >>could never preempt the watchdog thread. > > > > > > Just an idea. What about throttling runaway RT tasks? > > If the system spend more than 98% in RT tasks for 5s consider this as a > > _fatal error_. Print an error message and throttle RT tasks by inserting > > ticks where only SCHED_OTHER tasks allowed. For a limit of 98% this > > means one SCHED_OTHER only tick all 50 ticks. > > > > The limit and timeout should be configurable and of course it can be > > disabled. > > > > I know this is against RT task preempt all SCHED_OTHER but this is only > > for a fatal system state to be able to recover sanely. A locked up > > machine is is the worse alternative. > > There is a patch in -mm currently designed to use a sysrq key > combination which converts all real time tasks to sched normal to save > you if you desire in a lockup situation. We do want to preserve RT > scheduling behaviour at all times without caveats for privileged users.
The sysrq is already in 2.6.10. I had to use it the last days a few times. But it does help if you have no access to the console.
The RT throttling idea is not to change the behavior in normal conditions. It's only for a fatal system state. If you have a runaway RT task you can't guarantee the system is work properly anyway. It's blocking vital kernel threads, filesystems, swap, keyboard, ...
It's a bit like out of memory. You can do nothing and panic. Or trying something bad (killing processes) which is hopefully better as the former. btw: Are RT tasks excluded by the oom killer?
- 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/
| |