[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54EDF7D8.60201@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:27:04 -0500
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, normalperson@...t.net,
davidel@...ilserver.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
luto@...capital.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] epoll: introduce round robin wakeup mode
On 02/25/2015 02:38 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> When we are sharing a wakeup source among multiple epoll
>> fds, we end up with thundering herd wakeups, since there
>> is currently no way to add to the wakeup source
>> exclusively. This series introduces a new EPOLL_ROTATE
>> flag to allow for round robin exclusive wakeups.
>>
>> I believe this patch series addresses the two main
>> concerns that were raised in prior postings. Namely, that
>> it affected code (and potentially performance) of the
>> core kernel wakeup functions, even in cases where it was
>> not strictly needed, and that it could lead to wakeup
>> starvation (since we were are no longer waking up all
>> waiters). It does so by adding an extra layer of
>> indirection, whereby waiters are attached to a 'psuedo'
>> epoll fd, which in turn is attached directly to the
>> wakeup source.
>> sched/wait: add __wake_up_rotate()
>> include/linux/wait.h | 1 +
>> kernel/sched/wait.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> So the scheduler bits are looking good to me in principle,
> because they just add a new round-robin-rotating wakeup
> variant and don't disturb the others.
>
> Is there consensus on the epoll ABI changes? With Davide
I'm not sure there is a clear consensus on this change,
but I'm hoping that I've addressed the outstanding
concerns in this latest version.
I also think the addition of a way to do a 'wakeup policy'
here will open up other 'policies', such as taking into
account cpu affinity as you suggested. So, I think its
potentially an interesting direction for this code.
> Libenzi inactive eventpoll appears to be without a
> dedicated maintainer since 2011 or so. Is there anyone who
> knows the code and its usages in detail and does final ABI
> decisions on eventpoll - Andrew, Al or Linus?
>
Generally, Andrew and Al do more 'final' reviews here,
and a lot of others on lkml are always very helpful in
looking at this code. However, its not always clear, at
least to me, who I should pester.
Thanks,
-Jason
--
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