[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#944589: gsequencer: stalls system



it will just spike back to 110% when there is even a small load because you're not addressing the scheduling issue.

On a 4-core system, when 50% is reserved for the RT-bandwidth the greatest percentage for CPU% utilization becomes 200%.

But it is 200% that is shared for all RT-policy tasks..

basically this means 2 cores are fully saturated by that task in "cpu bandwidth"..

it could be 2 cores each at 100% or 4 cores each having 50% utilization by the various threads by the application.

A properly made application wouldn't saturate all available RT bandwidth, as that's called an out-of-control RT application...it's a scheduling-function coding issue...

Any-time you have a run-away and in-appropriately scheduled application, you automatically have an improperly behaving application that can be used to do things it shouldn't..

eg:: fork-bombing a webserver to saturate a server, ddos-attacks is doing what ags is doing in saturating the cpu so that no other security task can run..

haven't coded in long time, but I'm experienced enough to understand the implications about process-bombing/saturation and run-away tasks..

The "FIFO" you see in the pictures -- threads with this policy class are RT, and so is RR, as well as BATCH policy task.. so everything of these three all need to fit inside the same RT bandwidth.

Ags incorrectly saturates the whole rt bandwidth leaving no RT bandwidth for any other RT task --- such as "drivers" which run on FIFO threads.

I wouldn't be a strong mentor on programming at this point in time... but basically your application is running out of control when it is doing this -- and there's stability as well security issue related.

My gut feeling here is you should be investigating scheduling functions as I think it's pretty obvious because there's an error message showing exactly this..

Come back and update this report and let me know when this gets fixed. -- I could wait ..

thanks


Reply to: