Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1214641
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability |
| Date | 2015-08-27 17:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q2786-8ds-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <q1S93-3nY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <q1S93-3nY-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <q1SLL-46X-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <q25fY-5vZ-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <q26F5-7pQ-45@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-26 05:20 +0200
[PATCH 2/3] timer: Check thread timers only when there are active thread timers Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-26 05:20 +0200
[PATCH 1/3] timer: Optimize fastpath_timer_check() Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-26 05:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] timer: Optimize fastpath_timer_check() Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 00:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] timer: Optimize fastpath_timer_check() Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2015-08-31 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] timer: Optimize fastpath_timer_check() Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-31 21:50 +0200
[PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-26 05:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-08-26 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-27 01:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 01:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-27 01:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-27 07:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-27 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] timer: Reduce unnecessary sighand lock contention Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 23:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-08-26 05:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-26 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-26 19:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> - 2015-08-27 00:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Hideaki Kimura <hideaki.kimura@hpe.com> - 2015-08-27 01:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 01:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Hideaki Kimura <hideaki.kimura@hpe.com> - 2015-08-27 02:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 15:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2015-08-27 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-08-27 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] timer: Improve itimers scalability Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 17:20 +0200
csiph-web