[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081126100749.3CAC.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:09:29 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Poll : introduce poll_wait_exclusive() new function
> > Mathieu Desnoyers explained it cause following problem to LTTng.
> >
> > In LTTng, all lttd readers are polling all the available debugfs files
> > for data. This is principally because the number of reader threads is
> > user-defined and there are typical workloads where a single CPU is
> > producing most of the tracing data and all other CPUs are idle,
> > available to consume data. It therefore makes sense not to tie those
> > threads to specific buffers. However, when the number of threads grows,
> > we face a "thundering herd" problem where many threads can be woken up
> > and put back to sleep, leaving only a single thread doing useful work.
>
> Why do you need to have so many threads banging a single device/file?
> Have one (or any other very little number) puller thread(s), that
> activates with chucks of pulled data the other processing threads. That
> way there's no need for a new wakeup abstraction.
Mathieu, I don't hope I unstrictly explain to LTTng.
Could you please explain LTTng design?
--
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