From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: paulmck@us.ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.14-rt22 (and mainline) excessive latency
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:54:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1135194859.31433.6.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051221133641.GA7613@us.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 05:36 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:32:48PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 17:47 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:24:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I captured this 3+ ms latency trace when killing a process with a few
> > > > > thousand threads. Can a cond_resched be added to this code path?
> > > >
> > > > > bash-17992 0.n.1 29us : eligible_child (do_wait)
> > > > >
> > > > > [ 3000+ of these deleted ]
> > > > >
> > > > > bash-17992 0.n.1 3296us : eligible_child (do_wait)
> > > >
> > > > Atomicity of signal delivery is pretty much a must, so i'm not sure this
> > > > particular latency can be fixed, short of running PREEMPT_RT. Paul E.
> > > > McKenney is doing some excellent stuff by RCU-ifying the task lookup and
> > > > signal code, but i'm not sure whether it could cover do_wait().
> > >
> > > Took a quick break from repeatedly shooting myself in the foot with
> > > RCU read-side priority boosting (still have a few toes left) to take
> > > a quick look at this. The TASK_TRACED and TASK_STOPPED cases seem
> > > non-trivial, and I am concerned about races with exit.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on whether the latency is due to contention on the
> > > tasklist lock vs. the "goto repeat" in do_wait()?
> >
> > It's a UP system so I'd be surprised if there were any contention.
>
> Couldn't there be contention due to preemption of someone holding
> the tasklist lock?
But I'm running with PREEMPT_DESKTOP (specifically I configured a system
to have the exact same preemption model as mainline - PREEMPT_DESKTOP
with no soft/hardirq preemption) so holding a spinlock will disable
preemption.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-21 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-20 0:40 2.6.14-rt22 (and mainline) excessive latency Lee Revell
2005-12-20 4:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-21 1:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-12-21 3:32 ` Lee Revell
2005-12-21 13:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-12-21 19:54 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2005-12-23 4:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-12-23 4:22 ` Lee Revell
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=1135194859.31433.6.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@us.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox