public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] memcg_lib/memcg_process: Better synchronization of signal USR1
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 13:10:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191126121038.GC16922@rei.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f914dce-92b7-9070-6230-d76b73d7da34@jv-coder.de>

Hi!
> >> We run the test with timeout=1000 now and it works fine. It is simpler
> >> than thinking about any
> >> other synchronization technique. The additonal wait adds less than 30
> >> for all tests, that use memcg_process.
> > 30 what? seconds? That is unfortunatelly not acceptable.
> Yes 30 seconds. Why shouldn't that be not acceptable? It is nothing compared
> to the runtime of other tests.

I have written a blog post that partly applies to this case, see:

https://people.kernel.org/metan/why-sleep-is-almost-never-acceptable-in-tests

> > Actually having a closer look at the code there is a loop that checks
> > every 100ms if:
> >
> > 1) the process is still alive
> > 2) if there was increase in usage_in_bytes in the corresponding cgroup
> >
> > So what is wrong with the original code?
> Please reread the description of my initial post. The problem is the 
> signal race
> not the check. The checkpoint system prevents the race. There is no way 
> around
> a solid synchronization.

So the problem is that sometimes the program has not finished handling
the first signal and we are sending another, right?

I guess that the proper solution would be avoding the signals in the
first place. I guess that we can estabilish two-way communication with
fifos, which would also mean that we would get notified as fast as the
child dies as well.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-26 12:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-06  7:36 [LTP] [PATCH] memcg_lib/memcg_process: Better synchronization of signal USR1 Joerg Vehlow
2019-11-06  8:33 ` Joerg Vehlow
2019-11-21 18:34   ` Petr Vorel
2019-11-25 13:14     ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-11-25 14:28       ` Petr Vorel
2019-11-25 13:29   ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-11-25 13:48     ` Joerg Vehlow
2019-11-25 15:32       ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-11-26  5:08         ` Joerg Vehlow
2019-11-26 12:10           ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2019-11-26 12:39             ` Joerg Vehlow
2019-11-27  7:41               ` Joerg Vehlow
2019-12-03 15:12               ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-12-06  6:24                 ` Joerg Vehlow

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=20191126121038.GC16922@rei.lan \
    --to=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /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