On 26.09.2005 [17:12:32 +0900], Horms wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 05:05:10PM +0900, Horms wrote:
[snip]
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
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.
quoted
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?
Here is that version of the patch. Nishanth, I take it that I do not
need to set TASK_INTERRUPTABLE before calling msleep_interruptible(),
please let me know if I am wrong.
Yes, exactly. I'm just trying to narrow it down to see if it's the task
state that's causing the issue (which, to be honest, doesn't make a lot
of sense to me -- with ssleep() your load average will go up as the task
will be UNINTERRUPTIBLE state, but I am not sure why utilisation would
rise, as you are still sleeping...)
Thanks,
Nish
Just to add more info, please note the output of "ps":
debld1:~# ps aux|grep ipvs
root 3748 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D 12:09 0:00
[ipvs_syncmaster]
root 3757 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D 12:09 0:00
[ipvs_syncbackup]
Note the D status, i.e. (from ps(1) man page): Uninterruptible sleep
(usually IO)
I hope to have a Xeon machine to make some more tests in the next
days, in the mean time I'll try to reproduce my setup on a couple of
VMWare Workstation machines.
More later.
Thank you all.
Luca
On 26/09/05, Nishanth Aravamudan [off-list ref] wrote:
On 26.09.2005 [17:12:32 +0900], Horms wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 05:05:10PM +0900, Horms wrote:
[snip]
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
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.
quoted
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?
Here is that version of the patch. Nishanth, I take it that I do not
need to set TASK_INTERRUPTABLE before calling msleep_interruptible(),
please let me know if I am wrong.
Yes, exactly. I'm just trying to narrow it down to see if it's the task
state that's causing the issue (which, to be honest, doesn't make a lot
of sense to me -- with ssleep() your load average will go up as the task
will be UNINTERRUPTIBLE state, but I am not sure why utilisation would
rise, as you are still sleeping...)
Thanks,
Nish