From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@suse.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thp: reduce khugepaged freezing latency
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:09:00 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111109180900.GF1260@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111109172942.GJ5075@redhat.com>
Hello, Anrea.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 06:29:42PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> My point is if what happens is:
>
> freezer CPU khugepaged
> ------
> assert freezing
> wake_up(interruptible)
> __set_current_state(interruptible)
> schedule()
>
> are we still hanging then?
Yeap, you're right. I was thinking INTERRUPTILBE was being set before
try_to_freeze().
> And I think it's silly to use wait_event_freezable_timeout if I
> don't have any waitqueue to wait on.
I'm confused. You're doing add_wait_queue() before
schedule_timeout_interruptible(). prepare_to_wait() is essentially
add_wait_queue() + set_current_state(). What am I missing? ie. why
not do the following?
prepare_to_wait(INTERRUPTIBLE);
try_to_freeze();
schedule_timeout();
try_to_freeze();
finish_wait();
or even simpler,
wait_event_freezable_timeout(wq, false, timeout);
In terms of overhead, there is no appreciable difference from
add_wait_queue();
schedule_timeout_interruptible();
remove_wait_queue()
Or is the logic there scheduled to change?
> +signed long __sched schedule_timeout_freezable(signed long timeout)
> +{
> + do
> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + while (try_to_freeze());
> + return schedule_timeout(timeout);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule_timeout_freezable);
Hmmm... I don't know. I really hope all freezable tasks stick to
higher level interface. It's way too easy to get things wrong and eat
either freezing or actual wakeup condition.
Thank you.
--
tejun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@suse.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thp: reduce khugepaged freezing latency
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:09:00 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111109180900.GF1260@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111109172942.GJ5075@redhat.com>
Hello, Anrea.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 06:29:42PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> My point is if what happens is:
>
> freezer CPU khugepaged
> ------
> assert freezing
> wake_up(interruptible)
> __set_current_state(interruptible)
> schedule()
>
> are we still hanging then?
Yeap, you're right. I was thinking INTERRUPTILBE was being set before
try_to_freeze().
> And I think it's silly to use wait_event_freezable_timeout if I
> don't have any waitqueue to wait on.
I'm confused. You're doing add_wait_queue() before
schedule_timeout_interruptible(). prepare_to_wait() is essentially
add_wait_queue() + set_current_state(). What am I missing? ie. why
not do the following?
prepare_to_wait(INTERRUPTIBLE);
try_to_freeze();
schedule_timeout();
try_to_freeze();
finish_wait();
or even simpler,
wait_event_freezable_timeout(wq, false, timeout);
In terms of overhead, there is no appreciable difference from
add_wait_queue();
schedule_timeout_interruptible();
remove_wait_queue()
Or is the logic there scheduled to change?
> +signed long __sched schedule_timeout_freezable(signed long timeout)
> +{
> + do
> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + while (try_to_freeze());
> + return schedule_timeout(timeout);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule_timeout_freezable);
Hmmm... I don't know. I really hope all freezable tasks stick to
higher level interface. It's way too easy to get things wrong and eat
either freezing or actual wakeup condition.
Thank you.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-09 18:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-08 8:33 khugepaged doesn't want to freeze Jiri Slaby
2011-11-08 8:33 ` Jiri Slaby
2011-11-08 15:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-08 15:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-08 15:29 ` [PATCH] thp: reduce khugepaged freezing latency Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-08 15:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-08 20:01 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-11-08 20:01 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-11-09 0:01 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 0:01 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 9:03 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-11-09 9:03 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-11-09 12:45 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-11-09 12:45 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-11-09 15:53 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 15:53 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 16:20 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-11-09 16:20 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-11-09 16:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 16:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 16:59 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 16:59 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 17:02 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 17:02 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 17:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 17:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 18:09 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-11-09 18:09 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 18:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 18:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 18:34 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 18:34 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 19:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 19:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-11 12:20 ` Jiri Slaby
2011-11-11 12:20 ` Jiri Slaby
2011-11-09 17:06 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 17:06 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-09 17:33 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-11-09 17:33 ` Andrea Arcangeli
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=20111109180900.GF1260@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@suse.com \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.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.