Re: Why kmem_cache_free occupy CPU for more than 10 seconds?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Zhao Forrest wrote:
These 2 kernel options are turned on by default in my kernel. Here's
snip from .config
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
# CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y
CONFIG_NUMA=y
CONFIG_K8_NUMA=y


Does this fix it?

--- fs/buffer.c~        2007-02-01 12:00:34.000000000 +0100
+++ fs/buffer.c 2007-04-11 12:35:48.000000000 +0200
@@ -3029,6 +3029,8 @@ out:
                        struct buffer_head *next = bh->b_this_page;
                        free_buffer_head(bh);
                        bh = next;
+
+                       cond_resched();
                } while (bh != buffers_to_free);
        }
        return ret;

So far I have run the test with patched kernel for 6 rounds, and
didn't see the soft lockup. I think this patch should fix the problem.
But what still confused me is that why do we need to invoke
cond_resched() voluntarily since CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY and
CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL are both turned on? From my understanding these 2
options should make schedule happen even if CPU is under heavy
load......

No, only CONFIG_PREEMPT will do that.

--
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from [email protected]
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

-
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]
  Powered by Linux