On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 20:38 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:13:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:42:00PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > I still think it's totally the wrong direction to pollute so > > > many fast paths with this obscure debugging check workaround > > > unconditionally. > > > > OOM prevention should count for something, I would hope. > > OOM in what scenario? This is getting bizarre. > > If something keeps looping forever in the kernel creating > RCU callbacks without any real quiescent states it's simply broken.
Typical problem we faced in the past is in exit() path when multi thousands of files/sockets are rcu-freed, and qhimark is hit. Huge latency alerts, as freeing 10000+ items takes a while (about 70 ns per item...) Maybe close_files() should use a cond_resched_and_keep_rcu_queues_small_please() ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/