> On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Yes and no. I've seen nasty stalls for quite a while now. (I think
> > that there is a wakeup problem lurking)
> > I found the change which triggers my horrid stalls. Nobody is going
> > to believe this...
> Hmm.. I can believe it. The code that waits on bdflush in wakeup_bdflush()
> is somewhat suspicious. In particular, if/when that ever triggers, and
> bdflush() is busy in flush_dirty_buffers(), then the process that is
> trying to wake bdflush up is going to wait until flush_dirty_buffers() is
> Which, if there is a process dirtying pages, can basically be
> pretty much forever.
> This was probably hidden by the lower limits simply by virtue of bdflush
> never being very active before.
> What does the system feel like if you just change the "sleep for bdflush"
> logic in wakeup_bdflush() to something like
> current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD;
> instead of trying to wait for bdflush to wake us up?
No difference (except more context switching as expected)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/