From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 06:08:33 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: test9-pre5+t9p2-vmpatch VM deadlock during write-intensive workload In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Molnar Ingo Cc: "David S. Miller" , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Molnar Ingo wrote: > i'm still getting VM related lockups during heavy write load, in > test9-pre5 + your 2.4.0-t9p2-vmpatch (which i understand as being your > last VM related fix-patch, correct?). Here is a histogram of such a > lockup: > this lockup happens both during vanilla test9-pre5 and with > 2.4.0-t9p2-vmpatch. Your patch makes the lockup happen a bit > later than previous, but it still happens. During the lockup all > dirty buffers are written out to disk until it reaches such a > state: It seems that conference life has taken its toll, I seem to have reversed the logic in the test if we can reschedule in refill_inactive() ;( On mm/vmscan.c, please remove the `!' in the following fragment of code: 894 if (current->need_resched && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_IO)) { 895 __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); 896 schedule(); 897 } The idea was to not allow processes which have IO locks to schedule away, but as you can see, the check is reversed ... With the above fix, can you still lock it up? And if you can, does it lock up in the same way or in a new and exciting way? ;) regards, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/