On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 09:34:00PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 26.09.2005 [12:28:08 +0900], Horms wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:15:31AM -0400, Roger Tsang wrote:
> > > As I've said before in this thread, you might want to try changing all the
> > > ssleep() calls to schedule_timeout().
> > >
> > > Roger
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/22/05, Luca Maranzano <liuk001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > here again trying to discover the reason ot the CPU hog for
> > > > ipvs_sync{master,backup}.
> > > >
> > > > I've digged in the sources for ip_vs_sync.c and the main differences
> > > > between kernel 2.6.8 and 2.6.12 is the use of ssleep() instead of
> > > > schedule_timeout().
> > > >
> > > > The oddity I've seen is that in the header of both files, the version
> > > > is always like this:
> > > >
> > > > * Version: $Id: ip_vs_sync.c,v 1.13 2003/06/08 09:31:19 wensong Exp $
> > > > *
> > > > * Authors: Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Is Wensong still the maintainer for this code?
> >
> > Yes, although he is kind of quiet.
> >
> > > > Furthermore, if I make an "rgrep" in the source tree of kernel 2.6.12
> > > > the function schedule_timeout() is more used than the ssleep() (517
> > > > occurrencies vs. 43), so why in ip_vs_sync.c there was this change?
> > > >
> > > > The other oddity is that Horms reported on this list that on non Xeon
> > > > CPU the same version of kernel of mine does not present the problem.
> > > >
> > > > I'm getting crazy :-)
> >
> > I've prepared a patch, which reverts the change which was introduced
> > by Nishanth Aravamudan in February.
>
> Was the 100% cpu utilization only occurring on Xeon processors?
That seems to be the only case where were this problem has been
observed. I don't have such a processor myself, so I haven't actually
been able to produce the problem locally.
One reason I posted this issue to netdev was to get some more
eyes on the problem as it is puzzling to say the least.
> Care to try to use msleep_interruptible() instead of ssleep(), as
> opposed to schedule_timeout()?
I will send a version that does that shortly, Luca, can
you plase check that too?
> In your patch, you do not need to set the state back to TASK_RUNNING,
> btw.
Thanks, updated patch below.
--
Horms
Use schedule_timeout() instead of ssleep() in ip_vs_sync daemon,
as the latter seems to cause 100% CPU utilistaion on HT Xeons.
Discussion:
http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2005-09/msg00031.html
Reverts:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git;a=commit;h=f8afb60c7537130448cc479d6d8dc9bf4ee06027
Signed-off-by: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
--- a/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
@@ -655,7 +655,8 @@ static void sync_master_loop(void)
if (stop_master_sync)
break;
- ssleep(1);
+ __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ schedule_timeout(HZ);
}
/* clean up the sync_buff queue */
@@ -712,7 +713,8 @@ static void sync_backup_loop(void)
if (stop_backup_sync)
break;
- ssleep(1);
+ __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ schedule_timeout(HZ);
}
/* release the sending multicast socket */
@@ -824,7 +826,8 @@ static int fork_sync_thread(void *startu
if ((pid = kernel_thread(sync_thread, startup, 0)) < 0) {
IP_VS_ERR("could not create sync_thread due to %d... "
"retrying.\n", pid);
- ssleep(1);
+ __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ schedule_timeout(HZ);
goto repeat;
}
@@ -858,7 +861,8 @@ int start_sync_thread(int state, char *m
if ((pid = kernel_thread(fork_sync_thread, &startup, 0)) < 0) {
IP_VS_ERR("could not create fork_sync_thread due to %d... "
"retrying.\n", pid);
- ssleep(1);
+ __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ schedule_timeout(HZ);
goto repeat;
}
|