From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:17:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56FBEE09.9080607@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160330150747.GY3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 03/30/2016 05:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 04:53:05PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
>>
>> Completions have no long lasting callbacks and therefore do not need
>> the complex waitqueue variant. Use simple waitqueues which reduces
>> the contention on the waitqueue lock.
>
> Changelog really should have talk about the determinism thing. The last
> time you posted this the point was raised that we should wake the
> highest prio waiter in the defer case, you did not address this.
So we really want to go this road? I didn't find any numbers what the
highest count of queued sleepers was in Daniel's complete_all() testing.
As for the latest -RT I received only one report from Clark Williams
with something like 3 to 9 sleepers waked up during one complete_all()
and this happens in the resume code.
Based on this, deferring wake-ups from IRQ-context and a RB-tree (or
something like that for priority sorting) looks like a lot of complexity
and it does not look like we gain much.
> Also, you make no mention of the reduction of UINT_MAX to USHORT_MAX and
> the implications of that.
Wasn't this
|To avoid a size increase of struct completion, I spitted the done
|field into two half.
later he mentions that we can't have 2M sleepers anymore.
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-30 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-30 14:53 [RFC v1] Use swait in completion Daniel Wagner
2016-03-30 14:53 ` [RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues Daniel Wagner
2016-03-30 15:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-30 15:17 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2016-03-30 15:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-30 15:29 ` Daniel Wagner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56FBEE09.9080607@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wagi@monom.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).