Mark Hounschell wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 06/02, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>>> Jun 2 16:36:11 harley kernel: ERR!! events/1 flush hang: c201dbc0
>>> c201dbc0 10012 10012
>>> Jun 2 16:36:11 harley kernel: CURR: 7974 7974 vrsx 93 26
>>> Jun 2 16:36:11 harley kernel: wq_barrier_func+0x0/0x8
>>> Jun 2 16:36:11 harley kernel: vmstat_update+0x0/0x24
>>> Jun 2 16:36:11 harley kernel: ----
>>> Jun 2 16:36:11 harley kernel: cache_reap+0x0/0xf4
>> As expected.
>>
>> Note that ->nivcsw/->nvcsw doesn't change. There is no "spare time"
>> on CPU 1, "vrsx" monopolizes CPU. events/1->cache_reap() was preempted
>> by vrsx, it had no chance to run since then. Note that jobs == 7974
>> doesn't change too. I forgot to print cwq->thread->state, but it should
>> be TASK_RUNNING. It would not be possible to kill vrsx if cache_reap()
>> stalled.
>>
>> I don't think this is a kernel problem, vrsx breaks flush_workqueue().
>> Ingo can answer authoritatively, but I think SCHED_RR/SCHED_FIFO were
>> not designed to be 100% cpu-bound.
>>
>> That said, I think it makes sense to get rid of flush_scheduled_work()
>> in floppy.c.
>>
>
> Oleg, thanks for your time in diagnosing this.
>
> As far as a 100% CPU bound task being a valid thing to do, it has been
> done for many years on SMP machines. Any kernel limitation on this
> surely must be considered a bug?
>
Could someone authoritatively comment on this? Is a SCHED_RR/SCHED_FIFO
100% Cpu bound process supported in an SMP env on Linux? (vanilla or -rt)
Thanks and Regards
Mark
-
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]
