Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758753AbYCXRfc (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:35:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753439AbYCXRfX (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:35:23 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:31166 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753220AbYCXRfW (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:35:22 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=LeqxxLFCyiLlmH4CLGfXZLNxkIgryGbaLnoFfBRUmlhq1/UFChl1Uem19Ri1pX7fM LxZhGSL6f3MBiXP1wWs0g== Subject: Re: posix-cpu-timers revamp From: Frank Mayhar To: Roland McGrath Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080322215829.D69D026F9A7@magilla.localdomain> References: <20080206165045.89b809cc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1202345893.8525.33.camel@peace.smo.corp.google.com> <20080207162203.3e3cf5ab@Varda> <20080207165455.04ec490b@Varda> <1204314904.4850.23.camel@peace.smo.corp.google.com> <20080304070016.903E127010A@magilla.localdomain> <1204660376.9768.1.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> <20080305040826.D0E6127010A@magilla.localdomain> <1204830243.20004.31.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> <20080311075020.A93DB26F991@magilla.localdomain> <1205269507.23124.57.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> <20080311213507.5BCDF26F991@magilla.localdomain> <1205455050.19551.16.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> <20080321071846.1B22B26F9A7@magilla.localdomain> <1206122240.14638.31.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> <20080322215829.D69D026F9A7@magilla.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google, Inc. Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:34:39 -0700 Message-Id: <1206380079.21896.20.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2736 Lines: 60 On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 14:58 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I would really like to just ignore the 2-cpu scenario and just have two > > versions, the UP version and the n-way SMP version. It would make life, > > and maintenance, simpler. > Like I've said, it's only something to investigate for best performance. > If the conditional code is encapsulated well, it will be simple to add > another variant later and experiment with it. Well, if it's acceptable, for a first cut (and the patch I'll submit), I'll handle the UP and SMP cases, encapsulating them in sched.h in such a way as to make it invisible (as much as is possible) to the rest of the code. > There are several important scenarios you did not test. > Analysis of combinations of all these variables is needed. > 1. Tests with a few threads, like as many threads as CPUs or only 2x as many. I've actually done this, although I didn't find the numbers particularly interesting. I'll do it again and keep the numbers, though. > 2. Tests with a process CPU timer set for a long expiration time. > i.e. a timer set, but that never goes off in your entire run. > (This is what a non-infinity RLIMIT_CPU limit does.) > With the old code, a long enough timer and a small enough number > of threads will never trigger a "rebalance". I'll do this at some point. > > I guess I could be wrong about this, but it appears to be what the code > > is doing. If my analysis is correct, I really don't need a new field, > > since the old fields work just fine. > > The analysis above is correct but your conclusion here is wrong. > The current value of an itimer is a user feature, not just a piece > of internal bookkeeping. After looking at the code again, I now understand what you're talking about. You overloaded it_*_expires to support both the POSIX interval timers and RLIMIT_CPU. So the way I have things, setting one can stomp the other. > Your code causes any timer_settime or timer_delete call on a process > CPU timer or any setrlimit call on RLIMIT_CPU to suddenly change the > itimer setting just as if the user had made some setitimer call that > was never made or intended. That's wrong. Right, because the original effect was to only set the it_*_expires on each individual task struct, leaving the one in the signal struct alone. Might it be cleaner to handle the RLIMIT_CPU stuff separately, rather than rolling it into the itimer handling? -- Frank Mayhar Google, Inc. -- 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/