Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1367301
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues |
| Date | 2016-03-30 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <riqee-7pH-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <ripLb-6Tm-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <ripLb-6Tm-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <ripUT-7fj-43@gated-at.bofh.it> <riq4y-7jq-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:17:29PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > 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? Dunno, but at least mention why it wouldn't matter. > 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. Sure, but that equally puts the whole defer thing into question, if we can put a hard cap on the max number (and WARN when exceeded) we're also good. > > 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. That wasn't in this changelog, therefore it wasn't read ;-)
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org> - 2016-03-30 17:00 +0200
Re: [RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-30 17:10 +0200
Re: [RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-03-30 17:20 +0200
Re: [RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org> - 2016-03-30 17:30 +0200
Re: [RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-30 17:30 +0200
csiph-web