From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
jikos@kernel.org, mbenes@suse.cz, joe.lawrence@redhat.com,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Find root of the stall: was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: Avoid blocking tasklist_lock too long
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:36:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250214083603.53roteiobbd5s4de@jpoimboe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALOAHbB46k0kqaH8BZk+iyL46bMbz03Z8sk7N+XuYM3kthTsNw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 10:44:59AM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> The longest duration of klp_try_complete_transition() ranges from 8.5
> to 17.2 seconds.
>
> It appears that the RCU stall is not only driven by num_processes *
> average_klp_try_switch_task, but also by contention within
> klp_try_complete_transition(), particularly around the tasklist_lock.
> Interestingly, even after replacing "read_lock(&tasklist_lock)" with
> "rcu_read_lock()", the RCU stall persists. My verification shows that
> the only way to prevent the stall is by checking need_resched() during
> each iteration of the loop.
I'm confused... rcu_read_lock() shouldn't cause any contention, right?
So if klp_try_switch_task() isn't the problem, then what is?
I wonder if those function timings might be misleading. If
klp_try_complete_transition() gets preempted immediately when it
releases the lock, it could take a while before it eventually returns.
So that funclatency might not be telling the whole story.
Though 8.5 - 17.2 seconds is a bit excessive...
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-14 8:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-11 6:24 [PATCH 0/3] livepatch: Some improvements Yafang Shao
2025-02-11 6:24 ` [PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Add comment to clarify klp_add_nops() Yafang Shao
2025-02-12 12:51 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-13 5:49 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-11 6:24 ` [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: Avoid blocking tasklist_lock too long Yafang Shao
2025-02-12 0:40 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-02-12 2:34 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-12 11:54 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-12 15:42 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-13 1:36 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-02-13 5:53 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-13 9:48 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-13 17:32 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-02-14 14:44 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-14 18:12 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-02-18 2:37 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-13 2:47 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-02-13 11:19 ` Find root of the stall: was: " Petr Mladek
2025-02-13 12:32 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-13 12:39 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-14 2:44 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-14 8:36 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2025-02-14 11:37 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-18 2:19 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-14 9:46 ` Petr Mladek
2025-02-11 6:24 ` [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: Avoid potential RCU stalls in klp transition Yafang Shao
2025-02-12 0:52 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-02-12 2:42 ` Yafang Shao
2025-02-13 1:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2025-02-13 5:51 ` Yafang Shao
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=20250214083603.53roteiobbd5s4de@jpoimboe \
--to=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=pmladek@suse.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox