On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:05:56 -0400 Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
> My main
> worry with keventd is that we might get stuck behind an unrelated
> process for an undefined length of time.
I don't think it has ever been demonstrated that keventd latency is
excessive, or a problem. I guess we could instrument it and fix stuff
easily enough.
The main problem with keventd has been flush_scheduled_work() deadlocks: the
caller of flush_scheduled_work() wants to flush work item A, but holds some
lock which is also needed by unrelated work item B. Most of the time, it
works. But if item B happens to be queued the flush_scheduled_work() will
deadlock.
The fix is to flush-and-cancel just item A: if it's not running yet, cancel
it. If it is running, wait until it has finished. Oleg's
void cancel_work_sync(struct work_struct *work)
is queued for 2.6.22 and should permit some kthread->keventd conversions
which would previously been deadlocky.
The thing to concentrate on here is the per-cpu threads, which is where the
proliferation appears to be coming from. Conversions to
schedule_work()+cancel_work_sync() and conversions to
create_singlethread_workqueue().
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
