Re: [PATCH v2] ns: do not block exit_task_namespaces() for a longtime
From: Kirill A. Shutemov
Date: Mon Jul 16 2012 - 13:16:04 EST
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 06:09:24PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > On exiting of the last task in a namespace we need to trigger freeing of
> > the namespace. Currently, we call synchronize_rcu() and free_nsproxy()
> > directly on do_exit() path.
> > On my machine synchronize_rcu() blocks for about 0.01 seconds. For
> > comparing: normal exit_group() syscall takes less than 0.0003 seconds.
> > Let's offload synchronize_rcu() and free_nsproxy() to a workqueue.
> > I also move synchronize_rcu() inside free_nsproxy(). It fixes racy
> > put_nsproxy() which calls free_nsproxy() without synchronize_rcu().
> > I guess it was missed during switch to RCU (see cf7b708).
> NAK. Making final umounts of anything in that namespace asynchronous,
> even though nothing is holding the stuff on them busy is simply
> wrong. Note that they can take a _long_ time, so we are talking about
> minutes worth of delay in the worst case. It's user-visible and
> it's a serious potential for trouble.
Now in worst case we have a process which hang for a few minutes in
exit_group() syscall in D state, right? Why is that any better?
Does it provide better user experience or better accounting or what?
Kirill A. Shutemov
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/