From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751912AbaCFOAJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:00:09 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:55325 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751082AbaCFOAH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:00:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:59:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Kevin Easton <kevin@guarana.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, oleg@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Pre-emption control for userspace
Message-ID: <20140306135946.GM9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1393870033-31076-1-git-send-email-khalid.aziz@oracle.com>
 <531641A8.40306@zytor.com>
 <53164824.3000704@oracle.com>
 <20140304222356.41c55bbc@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
 <5316574F.6040105@oracle.com>
 <8738ix5uyk.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20140306121333.GA12127@chicago.guarana.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140306121333.GA12127@chicago.guarana.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:13:33PM +1100, Kevin Easton wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Anything else?
> 
> If it was possible to make the time remaining in the current timeslice
> available to userspace through the vdso, the thread could do something like:

Assuming we can do per-cpu values in the VDSO; this would mean hitting
that cacheline on every context switch and wakeup. That's a complete
non-starter performance wise.

> 
> if (sys_timeleft() < CRITICAL_SECTION_SIZE)
>     yield();
> lock();
> 
> to avoid running out of timeslice in the middle of the critical section.

Can still happen, the effective slice of a single runnable task is
infinite, the moment another task gets woken this gets reduced to a finite
amount, we then keep reducing the slice until there are about 8 runnable
tasks (assuming you've not poked at any sysctls).

Also; depending on the state of the just woken task; it might land left
of you in the tree, making it immediately eligible to run, completely
obviating whatever number you just read.