From: David Rientjes <email@example.com>
To: Yang Shi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] Define killable version for access_remote_vm() and use it in fs/proc
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:47:47 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Yang Shi wrote:
> > Rather than killable, we have patches that introduce down_read_unfair()
> > variants for the files you've modified (cmdline and environ) as well as
> > others (maps, numa_maps, smaps).
> You mean you have such functionality used by google internally?
Yup, see https://lwn.net/Articles/387720.
> > When another thread is holding down_read() and there are queued
> > down_write()'s, down_read_unfair() allows for grabbing the rwsem without
> > queueing for it. Additionally, when another thread is holding
> > down_write(), down_read_unfair() allows for queueing in front of other
> > threads trying to grab it for write as well.
> It sounds the __unfair variant make the caller have chance to jump the gun to
> grab the semaphore before other waiters, right? But when a process holds the
> semaphore, i.e. mmap_sem, for a long time, it still has to sleep in
> uninterruptible state, right?
Right, it's solving two separate things which I think may be able to be
merged together. Killable is solving an issue where the rwsem is blocking
for a long period of time in uninterruptible sleep, and unfair is solving
an issue where reading the procfs files gets stalled for a long period of
time. We haven't run into an issue (yet) where killable would have solved
it; we just have the unfair variants to grab the rwsem asap and then, if
killable, gracefully return.
> > Ingo would know more about whether a variant like that in upstream Linux
> > would be acceptable.
> > Would you be interested in unfair variants instead of only addressing
> > killable?
> Yes, I'm although it still looks overkilling to me for reading /proc.
We make certain inferences on the readablility of procfs files for other
threads to determine how much its mm's mmap_sem is contended.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-27 1:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-27 0:25 [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] Define killable version for access_remote_vm() and use it in fs/proc Yang Shi
2018-02-27 0:25 ` [PATCH 1/4 v2] mm: add access_remote_vm_killable APIs Yang Shi
2018-02-27 0:25 ` [PATCH 2/4 v2] fs: proc: use down_read_killable in proc_pid_cmdline_read() Yang Shi
2018-02-27 0:25 ` [PATCH 3/4 v2] fs: proc: use down_read_killable() in environ_read() Yang Shi
2018-02-27 7:15 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2018-02-27 16:59 ` Yang Shi
2018-02-27 0:25 ` [PATCH 4/4 v2] mm: use access_remote_vm() in get_cmdline() Yang Shi
2018-02-27 1:02 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] Define killable version for access_remote_vm() and use it in fs/proc David Rientjes
2018-02-27 1:25 ` Yang Shi
2018-02-27 1:47 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2018-03-01 0:17 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-06 18:45 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-06 20:45 ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-06 21:17 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-06 21:41 ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-07 0:47 ` Yang Shi
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).