From: Artem Fetishev <artem_fetishev@epam.com>
To: <peterz@infradead.org>, <jmdavis@link.com>,
<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Bug 71331 - mlock yields processor to lower priority process
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 23:02:49 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140321200248.GB6264@owamsq.epam.com> (raw)
Hi all,
I am looking at a use-case when a real-time task (B) of higher priority is sometimes preempted by another real-time task (A) of lower priority. Well, B is not really preempted. It calls mlockall() which forces task B to yield the CPU. Under certain conditions, mlockall() calls lru_add_drain_all() which schedules a deferred work and wants the calling task to wait until that work is complete by putting the task into TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state and calling schedule_timeout().
Tasks utilize SCHED_FIFO policy.
See details here: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71331
Besides mlockall, there are other kernel paths which make use of lru_add_drain_all() and schedule_timeout(), so I guess there are bunch of other syscalls which may lead to the above use-case.
So the question is: is above use-case an expected behavior of real-time tasks or is it a bug in mlockall (i.e. it should not interrupt a real-time process)?
Thanks,
-Artem
next reply other threads:[~2014-03-21 8:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-21 20:02 Artem Fetishev [this message]
2014-03-21 9:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-03-21 12:18 ` jimmie.davis
2014-03-21 13:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-03-21 14:34 ` jimmie.davis
2014-03-21 14:54 ` Motohiro Kosaki
2014-03-21 13:35 ` Oliver Neukum
2014-03-21 14:01 ` jimmie.davis
2014-03-21 14:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-03-21 14:50 ` jimmie.davis
2014-03-27 0:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-03-27 4:20 ` jimmie.davis
2014-03-27 5:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-03-27 6:02 ` Robert Hancock
2014-03-27 11:37 ` jimmie.davis
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=20140321200248.GB6264@owamsq.epam.com \
--to=artem_fetishev@epam.com \
--cc=jmdavis@link.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®