lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH][RESEND] nommu: yield CPU periodically while disposing large VM
    On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:29:11 -0600 "Steven J. Magnani" <steve@digidescorp.com> wrote:

    > On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 18:40 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:33:16 -0600 "Steven J. Magnani" <steve@digidescorp.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > --- a/mm/nommu.c 2010-10-21 07:42:23.000000000 -0500
    > > > +++ b/mm/nommu.c 2010-10-21 07:46:50.000000000 -0500
    > > > @@ -1656,6 +1656,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(munmap, unsigned long, a
    > > > void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
    > > > {
    > > > struct vm_area_struct *vma;
    > > > + unsigned long next_yield = jiffies + HZ;
    > > >
    > > > if (!mm)
    > > > return;
    > > > @@ -1668,6 +1669,11 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
    > > > mm->mmap = vma->vm_next;
    > > > delete_vma_from_mm(vma);
    > > > delete_vma(mm, vma);
    > > > + /* Yield periodically to prevent watchdog timeout */
    > > > + if (time_after(jiffies, next_yield)) {
    > > > + cond_resched();
    > > > + next_yield = jiffies + HZ;
    > > > + }
    > > > }
    > > >
    > > > kleave("");
    > >
    > [snip]
    > > cond_resched() is pretty efficient and one second is still
    > > a very long time. I suspect you don't need the ratelimiting at all?
    >
    > Probably not, but the issue was that disposal of "large" VMs can starve
    > the system. Since these are not the norm (otherwise this would have been
    > fixed long ago) I was attempting to limit the impact on more
    > "normal"-sized VMs. Responsiveness is not great with a one-second
    > ratelimit, and as KOSAKI Motohiro points out this fix won't work on
    > systems with short watchdog intervals. I assumed that these were not
    > common.
    >
    > As efficient as schedule() may be, it still scares me to call it on
    > reclaim of every block of memory allocated by a terminating process,
    > particularly on the relatively slow processors that inhabit NOMMU land.

    This is cond_resched(), not schedule()! cond_resched() is just a few
    instructions, except for the super-rare case where it calls schedule().

    > It wasn't obvious to me that it has a quick exit. But since we are
    > talking about sharing the CPU with other processes perhaps this is only
    > an issue in an OOM scenario, when fast reclaim might be more important.
    >
    > I can certainly respin the patch to call cond_resched() unconditionally
    > if that's the consensus.

    You have a consensus of 1 so far :)


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-16 05:53    [W:0.036 / U:0.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site