Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754204AbcC3P3u (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:29:50 -0400 Received: from hotel311.server4you.de ([85.25.146.15]:60923 "EHLO hotel311.server4you.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753005AbcC3P3t (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:29:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC v1] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues To: Peter Zijlstra , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior References: <1459349585-6527-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <1459349585-6527-2-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <20160330150747.GY3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <56FBEE09.9080607@linutronix.de> <20160330152155.GZ3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Daniel Wagner From: Daniel Wagner X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56FBF0E9.40203@monom.org> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:29:45 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160330152155.GZ3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2199 Lines: 51 On 03/30/2016 05:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:17:29PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> On 03/30/2016 05:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 04:53:05PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: >>>> From: Daniel Wagner >>>> >>>> Completions have no long lasting callbacks and therefore do not need >>>> the complex waitqueue variant. Use simple waitqueues which reduces >>>> the contention on the waitqueue lock. >>> >>> Changelog really should have talk about the determinism thing. The last >>> time you posted this the point was raised that we should wake the >>> highest prio waiter in the defer case, you did not address this. >> >> So we really want to go this road? > > Dunno, but at least mention why it wouldn't matter. It seems I put to much effort into the cover letter. I should have spent that time in the changelog. Anyway, I am going through the users of complete_all() and it looks like most of them are either some setup code paths and the other bunch of calls are just making sure the single waiter really wakes up. >> I didn't find any numbers what the >> highest count of queued sleepers was in Daniel's complete_all() testing. >> >> As for the latest -RT I received only one report from Clark Williams >> with something like 3 to 9 sleepers waked up during one complete_all() >> and this happens in the resume code. >> Based on this, deferring wake-ups from IRQ-context and a RB-tree (or >> something like that for priority sorting) looks like a lot of complexity >> and it does not look like we gain much. > > Sure, but that equally puts the whole defer thing into question, if we > can put a hard cap on the max number (and WARN when exceeded) we're also > good. > >>> Also, you make no mention of the reduction of UINT_MAX to USHORT_MAX and >>> the implications of that. >> >> Wasn't this >> |To avoid a size increase of struct completion, I spitted the done >> |field into two half. >> >> later he mentions that we can't have 2M sleepers anymore. > > That wasn't in this changelog, therefore it wasn't read ;-) Got it, next version has all info in the changelog and not in the cover letter.