Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 06:34:47PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 21:56:10 -0700
> Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > non-obvious dependencies.
> > >
> > 
> > The dependencies is what made this solution uninteresting to us. For
> > instance, we currently use cgroup scheduling to reduce the impact of
> > some background tasks, but we occasionally saw a watchdog restart of
> > the system process were critical services were waiting on a kernel
> > mutex owned by a background task for more than 20 seconds. If we froze
> > a cgroup instead, we would not hit this particular problem since tasks
> > cannot be frozen while executing kernel code the same way they can be
> > preempted, but nothing prevents a task from being frozen while holding
> > a user-space resource.
> 
> one of the solutions we're looking at to solve this is to unfreeze the
> cgroup on a regular basis (say, every 15 to 30 seconds) briefly to avoid
> this kind of deadlock...

Cute!!!  ;-)

If this doesn't work for the Android folks for whatever reason, another
approach would be to do the freeze in user code, which could track
whether any user-level resources (pthread mutexes, SysV semas, whatever)
where held, and do the freeze on a thread-by-thread basis within each
"victim" application as the threads reach safe points.

I must of course defer to the Android folks as to whether or not this
would actually work for Android.  But if your approach works for them,
why worry?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/