From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/12] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:18:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160309121850.GA14915@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1454444369-2146-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
* Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the following patchset implements a killable variant of write lock for
> rw_semaphore. My usecase is to turn as many mmap_sem write users to use a
> killable variant which will be helpful for the oom_reaper [1] to asynchronously
> tear down the oom victim address space which requires mmap_sem for read. This
> will reduce a likelihood of OOM livelocks caused by oom victim being stuck on a
> lock or other resource which prevents it to reach its exit path and release the
> memory. [...]
So I'm a tiny bit concerned about this arguments.
AFAICS killability here just makes existing system calls more interruptible -
right? In that sense that's not really a livelock scenario: it just takes shorter
time for resources to be released.
If a livelock is possible (where resources are never released) then I'd like to
see a specific example of such a livelock.
You have the other patch-set:
[PATCH 0/18] change mmap_sem taken for write killable
that makes use of down_write_killable(), and there you argue:
[...] this is a follow up work for oom_reaper [1]. As the async OOM killing
depends on oom_sem for read we would really appreciate if a holder for write
stood in the way. This patchset is changing many of down_write calls to be
killable to help those cases when the writer is blocked and waiting for readers
to release the lock and so help __oom_reap_task to process the oom victim.
there seems to be a misunderstanding: if a writer is blocked waiting for readers
then no new readers are allowed - the writer will get its turn the moment all
existing readers drop the lock.
So there's no livelock scenario - it's "only" about latencies.
And once we realize that it's about latencies (assuming I'm right!), not about
correctness per se, I'm wondering whether it would be a good idea to introduce
down_write_interruptible(), instead of down_write_killable().
I'd love various processes to quit faster on Ctrl-C as well, not just on kill -9!
This would also test the new code paths a lot better: kill -9 is a lot rarer than
regular interruption.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-02 20:19 [RFC 0/12] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 01/12] locking, rwsem: get rid of __down_write_nested Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 02/12] locking, rwsem: drop explicit memory barriers Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 03/12] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 04/12] alpha, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 05/12] ia64, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 06/12] s390, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 07/12] sh, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-03 11:19 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2016-02-03 12:11 ` Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 08/12] sparc, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 09/12] xtensa, " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 10/12] x86, rwsem: simplify __down_write Michal Hocko
2016-02-03 8:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-03 12:10 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 16:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-03 22:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-09 14:40 ` David Howells
2016-06-09 17:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-10 16:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 11/12] x86, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-02-17 16:41 ` [RFC 11/12 v1] " Michal Hocko
2016-02-02 20:19 ` [RFC 12/12] locking, rwsem: provide down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-02-19 12:15 ` [RFC 0/12] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2016-03-09 12:56 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 13:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 13:28 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-09 13:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 14:41 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-10 10:24 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160309121850.GA14915@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@zankel.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).