Re: regression introduced by - timers: fix itimer/many thread hang

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

(fwiw your email doesn't come across properly, evo refuses to display
them, there's some mangling of headers which makes it think there's an
attachment)

On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 15:52 -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:08 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: 
> > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:03 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Also, you just introduced per-cpu allocations for each thread-group,
> > > > while Christoph is reworking the per-cpu allocator, with one unfortunate
> > > > side-effect - its going to have a limited size pool. Therefore this will
> > > > limit the number of thread-groups we can have.
> > > 
> > > Patches exist that implement a dynamically growable percpu pool (using
> > > virtual mappings though). If the cost of the additional complexity /
> > > overhead is justifiable then we can make the percpu pool dynamically
> > > extendable.
> > 
> > Right, but I don't think the patch under consideration will fly anyway,
> > doing a for_each_possible_cpu() loop on every tick on all cpus isn't
> > really healthy, even for moderate sized machines.
> 
> I personally think that you're overstating this.  First, the current
> implementation walks all threads for each tick, which is simply not
> scalable and results in soft lockups with large numbers of threads.
> This patch fixes a real bug.  Second, this only happens "on every tick"
> for processes that have more than one thread _and_ that use posix
> interval timers.  Roland and I went to some effort to keep loops like
> the on you're referring to out of the common paths.
> 
> In any event, while this particular implementation may not be optimal,
> at least it's _right_.  Whatever happened to "make it right, then make
> it fast?"

Well, I'm not thinking you did it right ;-)

While I agree that the linear loop is sub-optimal, but it only really
becomes a problem when you have hundreds or thousands of threads in your
application, which I'll argue to be insane anyway.

But with your new scheme it'll be a problem regardless of how many
threads you have, as long as each running application will have at least
2 (not uncommon these days).

Furthermore, the memory requirements for your solution now also scale
with cpus instead of threads, again something not really appreciated.

Therefore I say your solution is worse than the one we had.

You should optimize for the common case, and ensure the worst case
doesn't suck. You did it backwards.