Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Date | Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:52:25 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 20:38 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:13:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:42:00PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > I still think it's totally the wrong direction to pollute so > > > many fast paths with this obscure debugging check workaround > > > unconditionally. > > > > OOM prevention should count for something, I would hope. > > OOM in what scenario? This is getting bizarre. > > If something keeps looping forever in the kernel creating > RCU callbacks without any real quiescent states it's simply broken.
Typical problem we faced in the past is in exit() path when multi thousands of files/sockets are rcu-freed, and qhimark is hit.
Huge latency alerts, as freeing 10000+ items takes a while (about 70 ns per item...)
Maybe close_files() should use a cond_resched_and_keep_rcu_queues_small_please() ;)
| |