[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080223123100.GB9021@bingen.suse.de>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:31:00 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: gregory.haskins@...il.com
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>,
"Bill Huey (hui)" <bill.huey@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kevin@...man.org, cminyard@...sta.com, dsingleton@...sta.com,
dwalker@...sta.com, npiggin@...e.de, dsaxena@...xity.net,
gregkh@...e.de, pmorreale@...ell.com, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 08/14] add a loop counter based timeout mechanism
> *) compute the context-switch pair time average for the system. This is
> your time threshold (CSt).
This is not a uniform time. Consider the difference between
context switch on the same hyperthread, context switch between cores
on a die, context switch between sockets, context switch between
distant numa nodes. You could have several orders of magnitude
between all those.
>
> *) For each lock, maintain an average hold-time (AHt) statistic (I am
> assuming this can be done cheaply...perhaps not).
That would assume that the hold times are very uniform. But what happens
when you e.g. have a workload where 50% of the lock aquisitions are short
and 30% are long?
I'm a little sceptical of such "too clever" algorithms.
-Andi
--
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