MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:08:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <fa.Hqdoss5lzrLWp+lFEJqZ/ujkI+s@ifi.uio.no>
References: <fa.KsFh5TyrbQsJFfr+ZG/B2XUIl64@ifi.uio.no> <fa.VvrbWjrI+B/wni3lCHPP3szBuO8@ifi.uio.no> 
	<fa.Nf5tUBtLntQXqlJGJxXNN4M8u4o@ifi.uio.no> <fa.Hqdoss5lzrLWp+lFEJqZ/ujkI+s@ifi.uio.no>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Message-ID: <353ce7c5-23be-4fcc-9bed-96792c3d5cd6@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: observe and act upon workload parallelism: PERF_TYPE_PARALLELISM 
	(Was: [RFC][PATCH] sched_wait_block: wait for blocked threads)
From: Buck <charles.krasic@gmail.com>
To: Stijn Devriendt <highguy@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3767
Lines: 80

Hi,

I think our research on scheduling is somewhat related to this topic.

I posted to the kernel list a while back, but I'm not sure anyone
noticed.   Here is a link to
that post, which contains links to slides and our paper.

http://lwn.net/Articles/358295/

-- Buck

On Nov 21, 3:27?am, Stijn Devriendt <high...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Think of it like a classic user-level threading package, where one process
> > implements multiple threads entirely in user space, and switches between
> > them. Except we'd do the exact reverse: create multiple threads in the
> > kernel, but only run _one_ of them at a time. So as far as the scheduler
> > is concerned, it acts as just a single thread - except it's a single
> > thread that has multiple instances associated with it.
>
> > And every time the "currently active" thread in that group runs out of CPU
> > time - or any time it sleeps - we'd just go on to the next thread in the
> > group.
>
> Without trying to sound selfish: after some thinking I can't see how this
> solves my problem. This is fine for the case you mentioned later on,
> like UI threads, but it's not powerful enough for what I'm trying to achieve.
>
> Let's make the round-trip for the thread pool case and start with an empty
> thread pool queue:
> - All threads are blocked on the queue condition variable untill new work
> is queued.
> - Thread 1 happily wakes up and runs the work item untill it's blocked.
> - A new work item arrives and Thread 2 is woken to handle the new work
> ? item.
> - As long as new work arrives and Thread 2 is not blocked (regardless
> ? of preemption because the deal was that they will not preempt each
> ? other) Thread 2 keeps running this work.
> ? Even when Thread 1 is woken, it will not preempt Thread 1.
>
> One solution would be to let Thread 2 call sched_yield, but the
> question then is "when" and "how much". Every time a lightweight
> thread yields, you'll incur context switches. Because you don't
> know when or how much, you'll be penalized for context switching
> even when not needed. (Consider 1 blocked thread and 4 extra threads
> sched_yield'ing every 5 work items)
>
> Another option is to have a group-leader. Non-leader threads will call
> sched_yield once in a while in order to try and jump back to the group-leader.
> The group-leader will always continue work without sched_yield'ing.
> There's no preemption between these threads.
> The down-side is that in case multiple of these threads are waiting for
> an event, wake-ups must wake the group leader rather than the other
> coop-scheduled threads for this model to work.
> Another down-side is that when a non-leader thread is blocked and the
> group-leader is run, the non-leader thread is treated unfair.
>
> Either solution's end-result is a very unfair threadpool where one cannot
> guarantee even a loose FIFO-model where items are handled more or
> less in the order they are queued and a library that needs to make
> trade-offs in performance to get this behaviour back.
>
> The solution is great when the threads are blocked most of the time
> and have little CPU processing to do (like UI threads), but doesn't
> scale beyond that.
>
> As ever, enlighten me when you have a great solution to this problem.
>
> Stijn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at ?http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
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/