From: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@krystal.dyndns.org>
To: Andrew McDermott <andrew.mcdermott@windriver.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Subject: Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH] Poll : introduce poll_wait_exclusive() new function
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:27:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081126222714.GA10981@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <v4skpeent3.fsf@swi-aim.swindon.wrsec.fr>
* Andrew McDermott (andrew.mcdermott@windriver.com) wrote:
>
> Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@krystal.dyndns.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >> > Mathieu Desnoyers explained it cause following problem to LTTng.
> >> >
> >> > In LTTng, all lttd readers are polling all the available debugfs files
> >> > for data. This is principally because the number of reader threads is
> >> > user-defined and there are typical workloads where a single CPU is
> >> > producing most of the tracing data and all other CPUs are idle,
> >> > available to consume data. It therefore makes sense not to tie those
> >> > threads to specific buffers. However, when the number of threads grows,
> >> > we face a "thundering herd" problem where many threads can be woken up
> >> > and put back to sleep, leaving only a single thread doing useful work.
> >>
> >> Why do you need to have so many threads banging a single device/file?
> >> Have one (or any other very little number) puller thread(s), that
> >> activates with chucks of pulled data the other processing threads. That
> >> way there's no need for a new wakeup abstraction.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - Davide
> >
> > One of the key design rule of LTTng is to do not depend on such
> > system-wide data structures, or entity (e.g. single manager thread).
> > Everything is per-cpu, and it does scale very well.
> >
> > I wonder how badly the approach you propose can scale on large NUMA
> > systems, where having to synchronize everything through a single thread
> > might become an important point of contention, just due to the cacheline
> > bouncing and extra scheduler activity involved.
>
> But at the end of the day these threads end up writing to the (possibly)
> single spindle. Isn't that the biggest bottlneck here?
>
Not if those threads are either
- analysing the data on-the-fly without exporting it to disk
- sending the data through more than one network card
- Writing data to multiple disks
There are therefore ways to improve scalability by adding more data
output paths. Therefore, I don't want to limit scalability due to the
inner design, so that if someone has the resources to send the
information out at great speed scaleably, he can.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-26 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-24 11:24 [RFC PATCH] Poll : add poll_wait_set_exclusive (fixing thundering herd problem in LTTng) Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-11-24 11:44 ` [ltt-dev] " KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-24 11:51 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-11-24 12:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-24 12:16 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-11-25 10:50 ` [PATCH] Poll : introduce poll_wait_exclusive() new function KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-25 21:19 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-26 1:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-26 11:15 ` [ltt-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-11-26 11:20 ` Andrew McDermott
2008-11-26 22:27 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2008-11-27 0:08 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-27 12:50 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-28 13:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-12-02 1:27 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-12-02 4:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
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=20081126222714.GA10981@Krystal \
--to=compudj@krystal.dyndns.org \
--cc=andrew.mcdermott@windriver.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/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