Re: [PATCH RESEND v4] sched/fair: Add advisory flag for borrowing a timeslice

[Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

* Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 12/19/2014 04:57 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Khalid Aziz wrote:
> >>The queuing problem caused by a task taking a contended lock just before its
> >>current timeslice is up which userspace app wouldn't know about, is a real
> >>problem nevertheless.
> >
> >We know that already.
> >
> >>My patch attempts to avoid the contention in the first
> >>place. futex with adaptive spinning is a post-contention solution that tries
> >>to minimize the cost of contention but does nothing to avoid the contention.
> >
> >I never said that adaptive spinning can solve that problem.
> >
> >If you would have carefuly read what I wrote, you might have noticed,
> >that I said:
> >
> >      a proper futex like spin mechanism
> >
> >Can you spot the subtle difference between that phrase and 'futex with
> >adaptive spinning'?
> >
> >>Solving this problem using futex can help only if the userspace lock uses
> >>futex.
> >
> >A really fundamentally new and earth shattering insight.
> >
> >If you would spend your time to actually digest what maintainers are
> >telling you, we might make progress on that matter.
> >
> >But you prefer to spend your time by repeating yourself and providing
> >completely useless information.
> >
> >What you are missing completely here is that neither me nor other
> >maintainers involved care about how you spend your time. But we very
> >much care about the time WE waste with your behaviour.
> 
> I am sorry that you feel the need to continue to resort to 
> personal attacks [...]

Thomas did not attack your person AFAICS - he criticised your 
arguments with increasing volume, because he did not see you 
respond to his arguments in substance.

> even after I made it clear in my last response that I was not 
> going to pursue this patch. There is no possibility of a 
> productive discussion of a solution at this point. [...]

I think there is very much a possibility of a productive 
discussion:

> [...] I hope someone else can find a solution you find 
> acceptable.

to implement what Thomas suggested in the discussion: a proper 
futex like spin mechanism? That looks like a totally acceptable 
solution to me, without the disadvantages of your proposed 
solution.

Thanks,

	Ingo