From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix soft lockups/OOM issues w/ unix garbage collector
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:16:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20081201.131646.88364757.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20081126170401.GC30297@ldl.fc.hp.com>
	<20081126.153243.85669383.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20081201201703.GA15884@colo.lackof.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, eteo@redhat.com
To: dannf@hp.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:45803
	"EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768AbYLAVQq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:16:46 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20081201201703.GA15884@colo.lackof.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: dann frazier <dannf@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:17:04 -0700

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 03:32:43PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org>
> > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:04:02 -0700
> > 
> > > This is an implementation of David Miller's suggested fix in:
> > >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470201
> > > 
> > > It has been updated to use wait_event() instead of
> > > wait_event_interruptible().
> > > 
> > > Paraphrasing the description from the above report, it makes sendmsg()
> > > block while UNIX garbage collection is in progress. This avoids a
> > > situation where child processes continue to queue new FDs over a
> > > AF_UNIX socket to a parent which is in the exit path and running
> > > garbage collection on these FDs. This contention can result in soft
> > > lockups and oom-killing of unrelated processes.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: dann frazier <dannf@hp.com>
> > 
> > Applied, thanks a lot Dann.
> 
> I was asked if this patch may introduce blocking during operations on
> non-blocking sockets. Should we update wait_for_unix_gc (and its
> callers) to something like this?

No, it's just like waiting for a GFP_KERNEL memory allocation.
Non-blocking doesn't mean "never will sleep".