Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:00:27 GMT From: Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/172166: Deadlock in the networking code, possible due to a bug in the SCHED_ULE Message-ID: <201210020800.q9280Rug082824@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/172166; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru> To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, eugen@eg.sd.rdtc.ru, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: kern/172166: Deadlock in the networking code, possible due to a bug in the SCHED_ULE Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:59:31 +0700 02.10.2012 14:53, Alexander Motin пишет: > On 02.10.2012 10:48, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> 02.10.2012 13:58, Alexander Motin пишет: >>> About rw_lock priority propagation locking(9) tells: >>> The rw_lock locks have priority propagation like mutexes, but priority >>> can be propagated only to an exclusive holder. This limitation comes >>> from the fact that shared owners are anonymous. >>> >>> What's about idle stealing threshold, it was fixed in HEAD at r239194, >>> but wasn't merged yet. It should be trivial to merge it. >> >> Would it fix my problem with 6-CPU box? >> Your commit log talks about "8 or more cores". > > Hmm. Then I see no reason why threads were not stolen, unless they are > bound to specific CPU. Check `sysctl kern.sched.steal_thresh` output to > be sure. All NIC's threads and dummynet are bound in my boxes. igb(4) in RELENG_8 bounds its threads by default in very wrong way, so I rebound them. dummynet(8) in RELENG_8 goes wild under severe load unless bound to single or two cores. kern.sched.steal_thresh: 2
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201210020800.q9280Rug082824>