Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 05:35 pm, you wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Well this has become more common with 2.5.43-mm2. I had to abort the
> > > process_load run 3 times when benchmarking it. Going back to other
> > > kernels and trying them it didnt happen so I dont think its my hardware
> > > failing or something like that.
> >
> > No, it's a bug in either the pipe code or the CPU scheduler I'd say.
> >
> > You could try backing out to the 2.5.40 pipe implementation; not sure if
> > that would tell us much though.
>
> I massaged the patch a little for it to apply and it _is_ the offending code.
> Backing out the pipe changes fixed the problem. I was unable to reproduce the
> holdup I was seeing with process_load even at higher data sizes. Now what?
>
Try Manfred's pipe fix I guess?
--- 2.5/fs/pipe.c Sat Oct 19 11:40:14 2002
+++ build-2.5/fs/pipe.c Sat Oct 19 19:44:04 2002
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
break;
}
if (do_wakeup) {
- wake_up_interruptible(PIPE_WAIT(*inode));
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync(PIPE_WAIT(*inode));
kill_fasync(PIPE_FASYNC_WRITERS(*inode), SIGIO, POLL_OUT);
}
pipe_wait(inode);
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@
up(PIPE_SEM(*inode));
/* Signal writers asynchronously that there is more room. */
if (do_wakeup) {
- wake_up_interruptible_sync(PIPE_WAIT(*inode));
+ wake_up_interruptible(PIPE_WAIT(*inode));
kill_fasync(PIPE_FASYNC_WRITERS(*inode), SIGIO, POLL_OUT);
}
if (ret > 0)
-
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 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:49 EST