Re: [PATCH 01/13] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()

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

 



On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 21:38:18 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It shows that
> 
> 1) io_schedule_timeout(200ms) always return immediately for iostat,
>    forming a busy loop.  How can this happen? When iostat received
>    some signal? Then we may have to break out of the loop on catching
>    signals. Note that I already have
>                 if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>                         break;
>    in the balance_dirty_pages() loop. Obviously that's not enough.

Presumably the calling task has singal_pending().

Using TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in balance_dirty_pages() seems wrong.  If it's
going to do that then it must break out if signal_pending(), otherwise
it's pretty much guaranteed to degenerate into a busywait loop.  Plus
we *do* want these processes to appear in D state and to contribute to
load average.

So it should be TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]