[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:57:01 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: round-robining per-cpu counters
Ingo Molnar writes:
> The reservation mechanism really suffered from not being used by
> anything or anyone, and it thus bit-rotted across 300 follow-on
> commits.
Yeah.
> What would be the primary usecase? Allow admin to set aside (and
> guarantee) space for task counters? Allow admin to 'force'
> exclusivity of counter ownership?
>
> I think a better general solution would be to have a single
> round-robin list for all currently active counters (both percpu and
> task counters) - and fairly round-robin all of them. The scaling
> information makes it obvious when this is happening.
Sounds good, but I'm having trouble visualizing how we combine a
fairly static set of per-cpu counters with several sets of per-task
counters that come and go as their tasks get scheduled in and out.
Is there some clever scheduling technique that sorts all that out?
> If admin wants stronger ownership of counters then the
> pinned/exclusive attribute can be used.
I agree.
> We really want to keep the counter-scheduler simple, and we also
> want to make the default to be as permissive as possible.
Definitely.
Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists