Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261875AbVCHIUa (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 03:20:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261776AbVCHIUa (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 03:20:30 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:4049 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261875AbVCHIUW (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 03:20:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:19:22 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , roland@redhat.com, shai@scalex86.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] del_timer_sync scalability patch Message-ID: <20050308081921.GA25679@elte.hu> References: <20050307233202.1e217aaa.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050307233202.1e217aaa.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1525 Lines: 34 * Andrew Morton wrote: > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > When a potential periodic timer is deleted through timer_del_sync, all > > cpus are scanned to determine if the timer is running on that cpu. In a > > NUMA configuration doing so will cause NUMA interlink traffic which limits > > the scalability of timers. > > > > The following patch makes the timer remember where the timer was last > > started. It is then possible to only wait for the completion of the timer > > on that specific cpu. i'm not sure about this. The patch adds one more pointer to a very frequently used and frequently embedded data structure (struct timer_list), for the benefit of a rarely used API variant (timer_del_sync()). Furthermore, timer->base itself is affine too, a timer always runs on the CPU belonging to timer->base. So a more scalable variant of del_timer_sync() would perhaps be possible by carefully deleting the timer and only going into the full loop if the timer was deleted before. (and in which case semantics require us to synchronize on timer execution.) Or we could skip the full loop altogether and just synchronize with timer execution if _we_ deleted the timer. This should work fine as far as itimers are concerned. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/