lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] sched: implement the exclusive wait queue as a LIFO queue
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
> Changli Gao wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
>> > Changli Gao wrote:
>> >>
>> >> fs/eventpoll.c: 1443.
>> >>                 wait.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
>> >>                 __add_wait_queue(&ep->wq, &wait);
>> >
>> > The same thing about assumptions applies here.  The userspace process
>> > may be waiting for an epoll condition to get access to a resource,
>> > rather than being a worker thread interchangeable with others.
>>
>> Oh, the lines above are the current ones. So the assumptions applies
>> and works here.
>
> No, because WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE doesn't have your LIFO semantic at the moment.
>
> Your patch changes the behaviour of epoll, though I don't know if it
> matters.  Perhaps all programs which have multiple tasks waiting on
> the same epoll fd are "interchangeable worker thread" types anyway :-)
>

No. You are wrong. I meant epoll implemented LIFO on its own. You
should check the code. :)

>> > For example, userspace might be using a pipe as a signal-safe lock, or
>> > signal-safe multi-token semaphore, and epoll to wait for that pipe.
>> >
>> > WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE means there is no point waking all tasks, to avoid a
>> > pointless thundering herd.  It doesn't mean unfairness is ok.
>>
>> The users should not make any assumption about the waking up sequence,
>> neither LIFO nor FIFO.
>
> Correct, but they should be able to assume non-starvation (eventual
> progress) for all waiters.
>
> It's one of those subtle things, possibly a unixy thing: Non-RT tasks
> should always make progress when the competition is just other non-RT
> tasks, even if the progress is slow.
>
> Starvation can spread out beyond the starved process, to cause
> priority inversions in other tasks that are waiting on a resource
> locked by the starved process.  Among other things, that can cause
> higher priority tasks, and RT priority tasks, to block permanently.
> Very unpleasant.
>
>> > The LIFO idea _might_ make sense for interchangeable worker-thread
>> > situations - including userspace.  It would make sense for pipe
>> > waiters, socket waiters (especially accept), etc.
>>
>> Yea, and my following patches are for socket waiters.
>
> Occasionally unix socketpairs are occasionally used in the above ways too.
>
> I'm not against your patch, but I worry that starvation is a new
> semantic, and it may have a significant effect on something - either
> in the kernel, or in userspace which is harder to check.

Thanks for your reminding.

>
> I suspect it's possible to combine LIFO-ish and FIFO-ish queuing to
> prevent starvation while getting some of the locality benefit.
> Something like add-LIFO and increment a small counter in the next wait
> entry, but never add in front of an entry whose counter has reached
> MAX_LIFO_WAITERS? :-)
>

It is a little complex, and I'll keep it simple and improve it when necessary.


--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)
--
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: 2010-04-28 17:53    [W:0.282 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site