lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] tasklet: ignore disabled tasklet in tasklet_action
From
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:48:54 +0800
> Xiaotian Feng <xtfeng@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We met a ksoftirqd 100% issue, the perf top shows kernel is busy
>> with tasklet_action(), but no actual action is shown. From dumped
>> kernel, there's only one disabled tasklet on the tasklet_vec.
>>
>> tasklet_action might be handled after tasklet is disabled, this will
>> make disabled tasklet stayed on tasklet_vec. tasklet_action will not
>> handle disabled tasklet, but place it on the tail of tasklet_vec,
>> still raise softirq for this tasklet. Things will become worse if
>> device driver uses tasklet_disable on its device remove/close code.
>> The disabled tasklet will stay on the vec, frequently __raise_softirq_off()
>> and make ksoftirqd wakeup even if no tasklets need to be handled.
>>
>> This patch introduced a new TASKLET_STATE_HI bit to indicate HI_SOFTIRQ,
>> in tasklet_action(), simply ignore the disabled tasklet and don't raise
>> the softirq nr. In my previous patch, I remove tasklet_hi_enable() since
>> it is the same as tasklet_enable(). So only tasklet_enable() needs to be
>> modified, if tasklet state is changed from disable to enable, use
>> __tasklet_schedule() to put it on the right vec.
>
> gee, I haven't looked at the tasklet code in 100 years. I think I'll
> send this in Thomas's direction ;)
>
> The race description seems real and the patch looks sane to me. Are
> you sure we can get away with never clearing TASKLET_STATE_HI? For
> example, what would happen if code does a tasklet_hi_schedule(t) and
> later does a tasklet_schedule(t)?

hmm, that will be a nightmare...
tasklet_schedule(t)/tasklet_hi_schedule(t) doesn't use list_head, they
simply
make t->next = NULL, then put t on the tail of
tasklet_vec/tasklet_hi_vec. If the code does a tasklet_hi_schedule()
and then a tasklet_schedule, the tasklet will stay on tasklet_vec and
tasklet_hi_vec .... tasklet_hi_action will handle it first and clear
the TASKLET_SCHED_SCHED bit, later, in tasklet_action, it will be
handled again and hit a BUG_ON ...

But if code does a tasklet_hi_schedule(), then tasklet_kil and later
does a tasklet_schedule(), we do need clear the TASKLET_STATE_HI. Also
we need to remove the tasklet_hi_enable() as it is the same as
tasklet_enable() and there's
only one user..

I'll send you V2 patch soon, thanks.

>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-06 03:02    [W:0.105 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site