Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:09:21PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:18:49 +0200
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 04:45:44PM -0700, Hideaki Kimura wrote:
> > > > I totally agree that this is not a perfect solution. If there are 10x more
> > > > cores and sockets, just the atomic fetch_add might be too expensive.
> > > > 
> > > > However, it's comparatively/realistically the best thing we can do without
> > > > any drawbacks. We can't magically force all library developers to write the
> > > > most scalable code always.
> > > > 
> > > > My point is: this is a safety net, and a very effective one.
> > > 
> > > I mean the problem here is that a library uses an unscalable profiling feature,
> > > unconditionally as soon as you load it without even initializing anything. And
> > > this library is used in production.
> > > 
> > > At first sight, fixing that in the kernel is only a hack that just reduces a bit
> > > the symptoms.
> > > 
> > > What is the technical issue that prevents from fixing that in the library itself?
> > > Posix timers can be attached anytime.
> > 
> > I'm curious to what the downside of this patch set is? If we can fix a
> > problem that should be fixed in userspace, but does not harm the kernel
> > by doing so, is that bad? (an argument for kdbus? ;-)
> 
> The patches are not fixing a problem which should be fixed in user
> space. They merily avoid lock contention which happens to be prominent
> with that particular library. But avoiding lock contention even for 2
> threads is a worthwhile exercise if it does not hurt otherwise. And I
> can't see anything what hurts with these patches.

Sure it shouldn't really hurt anyway, since the presense of elapsing timers
itself is checked locklessly.