Re: page fault scalability patch V11 [0/7]: overview

[Nick Piggin]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> > > /proc/ triggering NMI oopses was a persistent problem even before that
> > > code was merged. I've not bothered testing it as it at best aggravates it.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:03:17PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > It isn't a problem. If it ever became a problem then we can just
> > touch the nmi oopser in the loop.
>
>
> Very, very wrong. The tasklist scans hold the read side of the lock
> and aren't even what's running with interrupts off. The contenders
> on the write side are what the NMI oopser oopses.

*blinks*

So explain how this is "very very wrong", then?

> And supposing the arch reenables interrupts in the write side's
> spinloop, you just get a box that silently goes out of service for
> extended periods of time, breaking cluster membership and more. The
> NMI oopser is just the report of the problem, not the problem itself.
> It's not a false report. The box is dead for > 5s at a time.

The point is, adding a for-each-thread loop or two in /proc isn't
going to cause a problem that isn't already there.

If you had zero for-each-thread loops then you might have a valid
complaint. Seeing as you have more than zero, with slim chances of
reducing that number, then there is no valid complaint.

> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> > > And thread groups can share mm's. do_for_each_thread() won't suffice.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:03:17PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > I think it will be just fine.
>
>
> And that makes it wrong on both counts. The above fails any time
> LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4 is used, we well as when actual Linux features
> are used directly.

See my followup.
-
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/