lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question
    Mike Fedyk wrote:
    > On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 12:03:12AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
    > > I think it's been done before, under the name "scheduler activations",
    > > on some other kernel.
    > >
    >
    > Wouldn't futexes help with this?

    Futexes are great for the waking up part, not so great for putting
    another task to sleep :)

    I see two ways to use a futex.

    1. Active task changes a synchronisation word.
    2. Active task FUTEX_WAKEs the shadow task before syscall.
    3. Syscall.
    4. Active task restores synchronisation word.
    ..time passes..
    5. Shadow task runs.
    6. Looks at synchronisation word, which says "go back to sleep".
    7. Shadow task sleeps with FUTEX_WAIT.

    This isn't bad, except that a shadow task runs every time we do a
    potentially blocking system call from the active task, _or_ is often
    ready to run.

    If it's just often ready to run, that's not a problem. If it always
    runs immediately, that's two unnecessary context switches per system
    call; quite an overhead, and I might as well hand off system calls to
    helper threads in that case :)

    Next way is the same, except that control is always handed to the
    shadow task and the active task, when the system call is finished,
    queues the current state machine for the shadow task to pick it up and
    then sleeps. Effectively the active and shadow tasks swap roles on
    each system call.

    This may or may not be better, depending on whether we've reduced the
    average number of context switches to 1 or increased it to 1 :)

    It'd wreck the kernel scheduler's interactivity heuristics, too :):)

    The first futex method would be quite efficient if a variant of
    FUTEX_WAIT was clever enough not to need to be scheduled just to go
    back to sleep when the word has the "go back to sleep" value.

    Third way is just to use SIGCONT and SIGSTOP. Not the fastest, but
    perhaps faster than the futex-induced context switches. It'd need to
    be measured.

    None of these will work well if "wakee" tasks are able to run
    immediately after being woken, before "waker" tasks get a chance to
    either block or put the wakees back to sleep.

    -- Jamie
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.024 / U:5.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site