Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait

Andrew Morton
2009-04-15T23:32:50Z

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:24:51 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 04/13, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 23:48 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 04/13, David Howells wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Should that really be TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE? I don't see anything obvious
> > > > > in the enclosing for(;;) loop that checks for or handles signals...
> > > >
> > > > If it were TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, it would sit there in the D-state when not
> > > > doing anything. I must admit, I thought I was calling daemonize(), but that
> > > > seems to have got lost somewhere.
> > >
> > > daemonize() is not needed, kthread_create() creates the kernel thread which
> > > ignores all signals. So it doesn't matter which state we use to sleep,
> > > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
> >
> > Yes, but that is precisely why it is cleaner to use
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. It documents the fact that signal handling isn't
> > needed (whether or not the thread is blocking them).
>
> Agreed. But TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE can confuse a user which does
> "cat /proc/loadavg" on the idle machine...
>
> Note that, for example, worker_thread() uses TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE too, and I
> think for the same reason.
>

Yup. It's a very common pattern for kernel threads to sleep in state
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. It is "well known" (lol) that kernel threads don't
accept signals, and having a kernel thread sleep in state
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE will indeed contribute to load average and we get
distressed emails quite promptly when we do that.

The patch itself is a little worrisome. The wake-all semantics are
very good at covering up little race bugs. And switching to wake-once
is a great way of exposing hitherto-unsuspected races.

<looks for races>

Nothing immediately leaps out, but you know how these things are.

I wonder if slow_work_cull_timeout() should have some sort of barrier,
so the write is suitably visible to the woken thread. Bearing in mind
that the thread might _already_ have been woken by someone else?

off-topic: afacit the code will cull a maximum of one thread per five
seconds. But the rate of thread _creation_ is, afacit, unbound. Are
there scenarios in which we can get a runaway thread count?