Re: [2.4.28-rc1] process stuck in release_task() call
From: Willy Tarreau
Date: Thu Nov 11 2004 - 03:34:23 EST
> > >>EIP; c012073d <release_task+1fd/230> <=====
> > c0120540 <release_task>:
> > c0120540: 55 push %ebp
> > ....
> > c0120736: 89 d8 mov %ebx,%eax
> > c0120738: e8 73 dd 01 00 call c013e4b0 <free_pages> <= here
> is this release_task+1fd? Can you send me the full disassemble of release_task?
Yes it is because the next instruction after call will be at c0120738+5 =
c012073d = release_task+1fd. (the return address on the stack is the
address of the next instruction after the call).
> It can't be blocked here, its a "call" instruction.
Seems rather strange indeed ! Perhaps this is not the disassembled function
of the *running* kernel ? it would be good to disassemble vmlinux and ensure
that it is exactly the one currently running. I too have already lost lots
of time searching a wrong bug because I disassembled the wrong kernel, so
I'm certain it can happen even when we're very careful :-(
> free_pages can't block either. Odd.
Marcelo, I have two questions for my own understanding :
- free_pages does spin_lock(&zone->lock) around the while() loop.
Considering that someone else could hold the lock (bug, etc...), it
could block here. But my feeling is that if such a lock were kept held,
the system would be totally frozen because everything which would want
to free memory would get stuck (even a process exit). Am I right ?
- would it enhance performance a bit to put a bunch of 'unlikely()' in all
the ifs which end in BUG(), especially inside the loop ?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/