[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1385270740.5402.50.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 21:25:40 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de, efault@....de,
jeffm@...e.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, scott.norton@...com,
tom.vaden@...com, aswin@...com, Waiman.Long@...com,
jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched,futex: Provide delayed wakeup list
On Sat, 2013-11-23 at 13:01 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I used to have a patch to schedule() that would always immediately fall
> > through and only actually block on the second call; it illustrated the
> > problem really well, in fact so well the kernels fails to boot most
> > times.
>
> I found the below on my filesystem -- making it apply shouldn't be hard.
> Making it work is the same effort as that patch you sent, we need to
> guarantee all schedule() callers can deal with not actually sleeping --
> aka. spurious wakeups.
Thanks, I'll definitely try the patch and see what comes up.
>
> I don't think anybody ever got that thing to run reliable enough to see
> if the idea proposed in the patch made any difference to actual
> workloads though.
Since your idea can also be applied to sysv sems (patch 3/3 back then),
I can definitely do some Oracle runs which IIRC, also likes doing
multiple wakeups at once. In any case this patch deals very nicely with
our customer workload, which is why I believe its particularly good
here.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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