[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080811160235.GC4524@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:02:35 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86_64 UV: Use blinking LED for heartbeat display
* Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG
> +static void uv_display_heartbeat(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + uv_hub_info->led_heartbeat_count = nr_cpu_ids;
> +
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct uv_hub_info_s *hub = uv_cpu_hub_info(cpu);
> +
> + if (hub->led_heartbeat_count > 0) {
> + uv_set_led_bits_on(cpu, LED_CPU_BLINK,
> + LED_CPU_HEARTBEAT);
> + --hub->led_heartbeat_count;
> + }
this too is a bad idea. Imagine 16K cores and assume that each such
iteration takes a few usecs (we write cross CPU) and you've got a
GHz-ish CPU. That can easily be _milliseconds_ of delay (or more) - and
in a function (the clocksource watchdog) that is all about precise
timings.
It is also very non-preemptable.
Why not have a separate per cpu kthread for this that does this in a
preemptable manner?
Also, why not let each CPU's heartbeat be set in a hierarchy instead of
by _all_ CPUs. That way you get a nice constant-ish overhead instead of
the current crazy quadratic(nr_cpus) behavior. I.e. let each CPU be
monitored by its neighbor (cpu_id + 1), by it's second-order neighbor
(cpu_id + 2), third-order neighbor (cpu_id + 4), etc.
That still gives pretty good coverage in practice while avoiding the
quadratic nature.
Ingo
--
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