On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Erich Focht wrote:
> > the best solution might be to just lock the 'next' task - this needs a new
> > per-task irq-safe spinlock, to avoid deadlocks. This way whenever a task
> > is in the middle of a context-switch it cannot be scheduled on another
> > CPU.
>
> We tested this and it looked good. But inserting a udelay(100) like:
> ...
> prepare_arch_switch(rq, next);
> udelay(100);
> prev = context_switch(prev, next);
> ...
> leads to a crash after 10 minutes. Again this looks like accessing an
> empty page.
there is one more detail - wait_task_inactive() needs to consider the
->switch_lock as well - otherwise exit() might end up freeing the
pagetables earlier than the context-switch has truly finished. The
udelay(100) test should trigger this race.
i've fixed this and uploaded the -A8 patch:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/O(1)-scheduler/sched-2.5.25-A8
does this fix the ia64 crashes? you need to define an ia64-specific
task_running(rq, p) macro, which should be something like:
#define task_running(rq, p) \
((rq)->curr == (p)) && !spin_is_locked(&(p)->switch_lock)
a number of other places needed to be updated to use the task_running()
macro. For load_balance() and set_cpus_allowed() it's technically not
necessery, but i've added it to make things cleaner and safer for the time
being.
the default locking is still as lightweight as it used to be.
> Does anything speak against such a test? It is there just to show up
> quickly problems which we might normally get only after hours of
> running.
the udelay() test should be fine otherwise. (as long as ia64 udelay doesnt
do anything weird.)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:17 EST