From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scheduling issue with signal handling
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:55:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080710085500.GA19918@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wsju88b1.fsf@denkblock.local>
* Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de> wrote:
> By sprinkling some printk()s all over the place, I've managed to
> establish the following sequence of events taking place in the event
> of delayed signal handling as described above: The first Ctrl+Z event
> enqueues a SIGTSTP signal which eventually results in a call to
> kick_process(). For some reason though, the signal isn't handled
> straight away but remains on the queue for some time. Consequently,
> subsequent Ctrl+Z events result in echoing another ^Z to the terminal
> but everything related to sending a signal is skipped (and rightly so)
> because the kernel detects that a SIGTSTP is still pending.
> Eventually, get_signal_to_deliver() dequeues the SIGTSTP signal and
> the shell propt appears.
>
> My question is this: Even under high disk I/O pressure, the threads
> dealing with I/O to the terminal evidently still get their turn as
> indicated by the sequence of ^Z appearing on screen. Why is it then,
> that the threads which are meant to process the SIGTSTP or SIGINT
> signals aren't scheduled for some seconds and is there a way to change
> this?
>
> Please let me know if there is anything I can try to investigate this
> any further or if you need further information.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Elias
>
> [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/28/50
hm, kick_process() is a no-op on !SMP.
Basically, when a new signal is queued and a task is already running, it
will run in due course and process the signal the moment it's scheduled
again. (unless the signal is blocked)
If a task is not already running, then the signal code will wake up the
task and it will then process the signal the moment it's executed.
The maximum latency of a runnable task hitting the CPU is controlled via
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_latency [available if CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y in the
.config] - 20 milliseconds on uniprocessors.
Several seconds of lag is almost out of question and would indicate a
serious scheduler bug, or - which is far more likely - either an
application signal processing hickup or a kernel signal processing
hickup.
If the lag happens with the task you can observe its worst-case
scheduling delay by looking at /proc/<PID>/sched, if you also have
CONFIG_SCHEDSTAT=y in your .config.
For example, a random shell's delays on a testbox:
phoenix:~> grep se.wait_max /proc/$$/sched
se.wait_max : 3.338588
That's 3.3 msecs _worst case_, on a system that has otherwise quite
insane load:
10:53:57 up 2:48, 2 users, load average: 77.56, 94.33, 102.75
So several seconds of delay, if it came from the scheduler, would be
really anomalous.
As a final measure, instead of printk's, you could try the scheduler
tracer in linux-next (CONFIG_CONTEXT_SWITCH_TRACER=y), to have an exact
idea about what is going on and when. (see /debug/tracing/README)
[ You might also want to try CONFIG_FTRACE=y and CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y
for extremely finegrained kernel tracing - available in linux-next
too. ]
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-10 8:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-10 8:14 Scheduling issue with signal handling Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-10 8:55 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-07-10 14:30 ` Elias Oltmanns
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080710085500.GA19918@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
--cc=eo@nebensachen.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.