Re: Why kmem_cache_free occupy CPU for more than 10 seconds?

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thu Apr 12 2007 - 03:40:01 EST


On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 15:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> There used to be a cond_resched() in invalidate_mapping_pages() which would
> have prevented this, but I rudely removed it to support
> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches (which needs to call invalidate_inode_pages()
> under spinlock).
>
> We could resurrect that cond_resched() by passing in some flag, I guess.
> Or change the code to poke the softlockup detector. The former would be
> better.

cond_resched() is conditional on __resched_legal(0), which should take
care of being called under a spinlock.

so I guess we can just reinstate the call in invalidate_mapping_pages()

(still waiting on the compile to finish...)
---
invalidate_mapping_pages() is called under locks (usually preemptable)
but can do a _lot_ of work, stick in a voluntary preemption point to
avoid excessive latencies (over 10 seconds was reported by softlockup).

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/truncate.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Index: linux-2.6-mm/mm/truncate.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-mm.orig/mm/truncate.c
+++ linux-2.6-mm/mm/truncate.c
@@ -292,6 +292,8 @@ unsigned long invalidate_mapping_pages(s
pgoff_t index;
int lock_failed;

+ cond_resched();
+
lock_failed = TestSetPageLocked(page);

/*


-
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/