[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <904d7aea51552c9be9afb3b19bfac66b@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 12:02:22 +0200
From: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: azat@...event.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] epoll: introduce helpers for adding/removing
events to uring
On 2019-06-03 11:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 08:58:19PM +0200, Roman Penyaev wrote:
>> On 2019-05-31 18:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> > But like you show, it can be done. It also makes the thing wait-free, as
>> > opposed to merely lockless.
>>
>> You think it's better? I did not like this variant from the very
>> beginning because of the unnecessary complexity. But maybe you're
>> right. No busy loops on user side makes it wait-free. And also
>> I can avoid c11 in kernel using cmpxchg along with atomic_t.
>
> Imagine the (v)CPU going for an extended nap right between publishing
> the
> new tail and writing the !0 entry. Then your userspace is stuck burning
> cycles without getting anything useful done.
Yes, that is absolutely not nice. That also worries me. I wanted
to minimize number of atomic ops on hot path, and of course in that
respect this busy-loop is more attractive.
I will polish and switch back to the wait-free variant and resend the
whole patchset. Could you please take a look? Will add you to CC.
--
Roman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists