Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:05:44 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Pathological case identified from contest |
| |
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/
| |