[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E70F6FD.2060709@colorfullife.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:48:29 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt] ipc/sem: Rework semaphore wakeups
On 09/14/2011 11:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Subject: ipc/sem: Rework semaphore wakeups
> From: Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Date: Tue Sep 13 15:09:40 CEST 2011
>
> Current sysv sems have a weird ass wakeup scheme that involves keeping
> preemption disabled over a potential O(n^2) loop and busy waiting on
> that on other CPUs.
Have you checked that the patch improves the latency?
Note that the busy wait only happens if there is a simultaneous timeout
of a semtimedop() and a true wakeup.
The code does:
spin_lock()
preempt_disable();
usually_very_simple_but_worstcase_O_2
spin_unlock()
usually_very_simple_but_worstcase_O_1
preempt_enable();
with your change, it becomes:
spin_lock()
usually_very_simple_but_worstcase_O_2
usually_very_simple_but_worstcase_O_1
spin_unlock()
The complex ops remain unchanged, they are still under a lock.
What about removing the preempt_disable?
It's only there to cover a rare race on uniprocessor preempt systems.
(a task is woken up simultaneously due to timeout of semtimedop() and a
true wakeup)
Then fix the that race - something like the attached patch [obviously
buggy - see the fixme]
--
Manfred
View attachment "patch-rt-sem" of type "text/plain" (1204 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists