Message-ID: <463FC5D8.2090502@bigpond.net.au>
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2007 10:35:36 +1000
From:	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>
To:	Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
	Zach Carter <linux@...hcarter.com>,
	buddabrod <buddabrod@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8

Esben Nielsen wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 6 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the _only_ valid way to handle timers is to
>>>>  - either not allow wrapping at all (in which case "unsigned" is 
>>>> better,
>>>>    since it is bigger)
>>>>  - or use wrapping explicitly, and use unsigned arithmetic (which is
>>>>    well-defined in C) and do something like "(long)(a-b) > 0".
>>>
>>> hm, there is a corner-case in CFS where a fix like this is necessary.
>>>
>>> CFS uses 64-bit values for almost everything, and the majority of values
>>> are of 'relative' nature with no danger of overflow. (They are signed
>>> because they are relative values that center around zero and can be
>>> negative or positive.)
>>
>> Well, I'd like to just worry about that for a while.
>>
>> You say there is "no danger of overflow", and I mostly agree that once
>> we're talking about 64-bit values, the overflow issue simply doesn't
>> exist, and furthermore the difference between 63 and 64 bits is not 
>> really
>> relevant, so there's no major reason to actively avoid signed entries.
>>
>> So in that sense, it all sounds perfectly sane. And I'm definitely not
>> sure your "292 years after bootup" worry is really worth even 
>> considering.
>>
> 
> I would hate to tell mission control for Mankind's first mission to another
> star to reboot every 200 years because "there is no need to worry about 
> it."
> 
> As a matter of principle an OS should never need a reboot (with 
> exception for upgrading). If you say you have to reboot every 200 years, 
> why not every 100? Every 50? .... Every 45 days (you know what I am 
> referring to :-) ?

There's always going to be an upper limit on the representation of time. 
  At least until we figure out how to implement infinity properly.

> 
>> When we're really so well off that we expect the hardware and software
>> stack to be stable over a hundred years, I'd start to think about issues
>> like that, in the meantime, to me worrying about those kinds of issues
>> just means that you're worrying about the wrong things.
>>
>> BUT.
>>
>> There's a fundamental reason relative timestamps are difficult and almost
>> always have overflow issues: the "long long in the future" case as an
>> approximation of "infinite timeout" is almost always relevant.
>>
>> So rather than worry about the system staying up 292 years, I'd worry
>> about whether people pass in big numbers (like some MAX_S64 
>> approximation)
>> as an approximation for "infinite", and once you have things like that,
>> the "64 bits never overflows" argument is totally bogus.
>>
>> There's a damn good reason for using only *absolute* time. The whole
>> "signed values of relative time" may _sound_ good, but it really sucks in
>> subtle and horrible ways!
>>
> 
> I think you are wrong here. The only place you need absolute time is a 
> for the clock (CLOCK_REALTIME). You waste CPU using a 64 bit
> representation when you could have used a 32 bit. With a 32 bit 
> implementation you are forced to handle the corner cases with wrap 
> around and too big arguments up front. With a 64 bit you hide those 
> problems.

As does the other method.  A 32 bit signed offset with a 32 bit base is 
just a crude version of 64 bit absolute time.

> 
> I think CFS would be best off using a 32 bit timer counting in micro 
> seconds. That would wrap around in 72 minuttes. But as the timers are 
> relative you will never be able to specify a timer larger than 36 
> minuttes in the future. But 36 minuttes is redicolously long for a 
> scheduler and a simple test limiting time values to that value would not 
> break anything.

Except if you're measuring sleep times.  I think that you'll find lots 
of tasks sleep for more than 72 minutes.

Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@...pond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce
-
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