From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@gmail.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] poll(): add poll_wait_set_exclusive()
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:07:16 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101007170716.GB799@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1286397096.6661.2.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 15:04 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > For reference, here is the use-case: The user-space daemon runs typically one
> > thread per cpu, each with a handle on many file descriptors. Each thread waits
> > for data to be available using poll(). In order to follow the poll semantic,
> > when data becomes available on a file descriptor, the kernel wakes up all
> > threads at once, but in my case only one of them will successfully consume the
> > data (all other thread's splice or read will fail with -ENODATA). With many
> > threads, these useless wakeups add an unwanted overhead and scalability
> > limitation.
>
> Mathieu, I'm curious to why you have multiple threads reading the same
> fd. Since the threads are per cpu, does the fd handle all CPUs?
The fd is local to a single ring buffer (which is per-cpu, transporting a group
of events). The threads consuming the file descriptors are approximately per
cpu, modulo cpu hotplug events, user preferences, etc. I would prefer not to
make that a strong 1-1 mapping (with affinity and all), because a typical
tracing scenario is that a single CPU is heavily used by the OS (thus producing
trace data), while other CPUs are idle, available to pull the data from the
buffers. Therefore, I strongly prefer not to affine reader threads to their
"local" buffers in the general case. That being said, it could be kept as an
option, since it might make sense in some other use-cases, especially with tiny
buffers, where it makes sense to keep locality of reference in the L2 cache.
> Or do you have an fd per event per CPU, in which case the threads should just
> poll off of their own fds.
I have one fd per per-cpu buffer, but there can be many per-cpu buffers, each
transporting a group of events. Therefore, I don't want to associate one thread
per event group, because this would be a resource waste. Typically, only a few
per-cpu buffers will be very active, and others will be very quiet.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-07 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-06 17:56 [RFC PATCH] poll(): add poll_wait_set_exclusive() Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-10-06 18:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-10-06 19:04 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-10-06 19:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-10-07 16:53 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-10-31 23:02 ` Davide Libenzi
2010-10-06 20:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-10-07 17:07 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2010-10-07 17:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-10-07 18:07 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-10-07 20:44 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20101007170716.GB799@Krystal \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=acme@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=johannes.berg@intel.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tzanussi@gmail.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