[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140618044745.GZ4669@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:47:45 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:27:31PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > OK. What would you suggest instead? If all we do is to revert the
>
> Hang checker should have two timer phases:
>
> Timer fires first time:
> - Save context switch counter on that. Force a reschedule to some
> work queue. Rearm timer
>
> Timer fires again:
> - Check reschedule count. If the reschedule count changed
> it was a real hang, otherwise ignore.
I could take that approach, but the RT guys aren't going to thank me for
the wakeup associated with the work queue. I suppose that I could use
one approach for real-time workloads and your workqueue-base approach
for other workloads.
Still, I bet I can drop the common-case cond_resched() overhead to a
single read of a per-CPU variable and a branch. But yes, that would be
in response to the second phase, FWIW. If that measurably too much
overhead, then one thing for realtime and another otherwise.
Thanx, Paul
--
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