[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: regression introduced by - timers: fix itimer/many thread hang
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Can we at least somehow make sure that nothing significantly happens in a
> > timer interrupt on a processor if the thread has not scheduled any events
> > or not odone any system calls?
> Do threads actually scale that far? I thought mmap_sem contention and
> other shared state would render threads basically useless on these very
> large machines.

They scale well. The problem is startup when they concurrently allocate
memory. That has been solved with distributing the pte locks. mmap_sem is
taken for read in the fault handler. So you have a wildly bouncing
cacheline at startup time that causes performance issues but no busy

> But afaiu this stuff, the per-cpu loop is only done when an itimer is
> actually active.
> The detail I've not looked at is, if when this itimer is indeed active
> and we are running 256 threads of the same application on all cpus do we
> then do the per-cpu loop for each tick on each cpu?

I would check how 8p and 16p fare with this? How much potential latency is
added to thread because it is interrupted and the timer interrupt goes
through this loop?

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-10 16:45    [W:0.075 / U:7.436 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site