From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>, Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@google.com>, Heiher <r@hev.cc>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH] epoll: autoremove wakers even more aggressively
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:55:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220715215528.213e9340e62df36320e89b22@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220716012731.2zz7hpg3qbhwgeqd@google.com>
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 01:27:31 +0000 Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > production with real workloads and it has caused hard lockups.
> > > > Particularly network heavy workloads with a lot of threads in
> > > > epoll_wait() can easily trigger this issue if they get killed
> > > > (oom-killed in our case).
> > >
> > > Hard lockups are undesirable. Is a cc:stable justified here?
> >
> > Not for now as I don't know if we can blame a patch which might be the
> > source of this behavior.
>
> I am able to repro the epoll hard lockup on next-20220715 with Ben's
> patch reverted. The repro is a simple TCP server and tens of clients
> communicating over loopback. Though to cause the hard lockup I have to
> create a couple thousand threads in epoll_wait() in server and also
> reduce the kernel.watchdog_thresh. With Ben's patch the repro does not
> cause the hard lockup even with kernel.watchdog.thresh=1.
>
> Please add:
>
> Tested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
OK, thanks. I added the cc:stable. No Fixes:, as it has presumably
been there for a long time, perhaps for all time.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-16 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-15 21:24 [RESEND RFC PATCH] epoll: autoremove wakers even more aggressively Benjamin Segall
2022-06-29 23:55 ` Andrew Morton
2022-06-30 1:12 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-30 2:24 ` Andrew Morton
2022-06-30 14:59 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-07-16 1:27 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-07-16 4:55 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
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=20220715215528.213e9340e62df36320e89b22@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=khazhy@google.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=r@hev.cc \
--cc=rpenyaev@suse.de \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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