All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olivier Croquette <ocroquette@free.fr>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: Scheduler: SIGSTOP on multi threaded processes
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:58:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <428255D5.7040105@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200505102112.j4ALCwXN002849@magilla.sf.frob.com>


Hello Roland

Thanks for your reply.

>>- Can a SIGSTOP be in a pending state in Linux?
> 
> For short periods.
> 
>>- If kill(SIGSTOP,...) returns, does that mean that the corresponding 
>>process is completly suspended?
> 
> No.  One or more threads of the process may still be running on another CPU
> momentarily before they process the interrupt and stop for the signal.


I get sometimes 150ms delay between the end of kill() and suspension of 
the last thread of the 3 threads, on a single-CPU system (Pentium 4).

It seems understandable to me to have a delay of <=1ms, especialy on SMP 
systems, but I really can't understand:

- the so big delays (like the 150ms)

- why only multi-threaded applications make problems

- why the policy of the programs has an impact on the results

- why for some executions, the SIGSTOP effect is instantaneous 100s of 
times in a row, until the end of the test, and the next execution shows 
delays right from the beginning


I don't have much experience hacking the kernel, are these behaviours 
are quite difficult for me to monitor or trace.
I am beginning to run out of ideas to test further :(

Could it be that my observations undercover a problem?
Or are the a consequence of the  Linux implementation?
Or do I have a problem in my test bench?

Can anyone reproduce and/or validate these observations?

Any hint would be appreciated!

  reply	other threads:[~2005-05-11 18:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-05-04 17:37 Scheduler: SIGSTOP on multi threaded processes Olivier Croquette
2005-05-04 18:16 ` Richard B. Johnson
2005-05-04 19:16   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-04 21:06     ` Alex Riesen
2005-05-05  0:42       ` Richard B. Johnson
2005-05-05  0:33     ` Richard B. Johnson
2005-05-05  0:45       ` Richard B. Johnson
2005-05-05 12:24       ` Richard B. Johnson
2005-05-05 13:14         ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-05-05 13:30         ` Andreas Schwab
2005-05-05 22:04         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2005-05-06 23:15           ` Problem while stopping many threads within a module Yuly Finkelberg
2006-04-20  8:43             ` shikha
2005-05-10 20:59         ` Scheduler: SIGSTOP on multi threaded processes Olivier Croquette
2005-05-10 21:12           ` Roland McGrath
2005-05-11 18:58             ` Olivier Croquette [this message]
2005-05-10 23:05           ` Alex Riesen
2005-05-05  1:04   ` Andy Isaacson
2005-05-04 19:10 ` Alexander Nyberg

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=428255D5.7040105@free.fr \
    --to=ocroquette@free.fr \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --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.