NetBSD-Bugs archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: port-vax/55415: vax no longer preempts in a timely fashion
The following reply was made to PR port-vax/55415; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Anders Magnusson <ragge%tethuvudet.se@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, oster%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc:
Subject: Re: port-vax/55415: vax no longer preempts in a timely fashion
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 21:38:35 +0200
Den 2020-07-30 kl. 21:30, skrev oster%netbsd.org@localhost:
> The following reply was made to PR port-vax/55415; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: oster%netbsd.org@localhost
> To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, port-vax-maintainer%netbsd.org@localhost,
> gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, oster%netbsd.org@localhost
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: port-vax/55415: vax no longer preempts in a timely fashion
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:25:48 -0600
>
> On 7/30/20 1:10 PM, Anders Magnusson wrote:
> > The following reply was made to PR port-vax/55415; it has been noted by GNATS.
> >
> > From: Anders Magnusson <ragge%tethuvudet.se@localhost>
> > To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, oster%netbsd.org@localhost
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: port-vax/55415: vax no longer preempts in a timely fashion
> > Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 21:07:37 +0200
> >
> > > I've done a bit more debugging... What I'm seeing is that in
> > > kern_runq.c:sched_resched_cpu() the call to cpu_need_resched(ci, l, f)
> > > happens, cpu_need_resched() sets up the AST. Except it's only once in a
> > > while that the trap with the AST fires, userret() gets called, and
> > > preemption happens! Sometimes the trap with AST fires once, and not
> > > again... sometimes it fires 5 times in a row, and then misses.... but I
> > > don't know why an AST that has been posted would subsequently get missed
> > > sometimes....
> > >
> > > So it's able to hit a situation where cpu_need_resched() is called, but
> > > the corresponding AST never fires. The loop in sched_resched_cpu() that
> > > sets ci->ci_want_resched keeps thinking (correctly!) that the AST has
> > > already been setup, and so doesn't try to call cpu_need_resched() again.
> > > When it gets 'stuck' like this, we never see an AST until the process
> > > completes. (nor do we see preemption until the process completes.)
> > > That seems to be because if I check the AST status with:
> > >
> > > if (mfpr(PR_ASTLVL) != AST_OK)
> > >
> > > that condition is always true... (meaning the AST is not setup...)
> > >
> > > Any ideas on how an AST can just 'disappear'? (I'm using the same
> > > mfpr() check right after the mtpr() setting of PR_ASTLVL, and there it
> > > thinks it's set just fine... so how does it go missing a few moments
> > > after????)
> > >
> > The AST is only acked if it has been taken. This is done in trap(),
> > just before userret() is called.
> > Losing the AST should not be possible.
> >
> > Reading the VAX manual says that ASTLVL is not saved by svpctx, so if a
> > process switch occurs before the AST is delivered it will be lost.
> > Can this ever happen?
>
> Hmm... svpctx happens in softint_common(), which seems to be called from
> lots of softFOO functions... So if I'm reading this correctly, if we
> happen to get into softint_common then the AST will get lost....
>
AST is itself a softint (called at Softint level 2).
But we should probably add saving of AST levels in the PCB anyway.
-- Ragge
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index