On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:12:04 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------->
> Subject: [patch] x86: fix spin-loop starvation bug
> From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
>
> Miklos Szeredi reported very long pauses (several seconds, sometimes
> more) on his T60 (with a Core2Duo) which he managed to track down to
> wait_task_inactive()'s open-coded busy-loop. He observed that an
> interrupt on one core tries to acquire the runqueue-lock but does not
> succeed in doing so for a very long time - while wait_task_inactive() on
> the other core loops waiting for the first core to deschedule a task
> (which it wont do while spinning in an interrupt handler).
>
> The problem is: both the spin_lock() code and the wait_task_inactive()
> loop uses cpu_relax()/rep_nop(), so in theory the CPU should have
> guaranteed MESI-fairness to the two cores - but that didnt happen: one
> of the cores was able to monopolize the cacheline that holds the
> runqueue lock, for extended periods of time.
>
> This patch changes the spin-loop to assert an atomic op after every REP
> NOP instance - this will cause the CPU to express its "MESI interest" in
> that cacheline after every REP NOP.
Kiran, if you're still able to reproduce that zone->lru_lock starvation problem,
this would be a good one to try...
-
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]
