public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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!

  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