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!
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox