Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: regression introduced by - timers: fix itimer/many thread hang | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:33:28 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 09:46 +0100, Petr Tesarik wrote: > Peter Zijlstra píše v Ne 23. 11. 2008 v 15:24 +0100: > > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 19:42 +0100, Petr Tesarik wrote: > > > > > > > In any event, while this particular implementation may not be optimal, > > > > > at least it's _right_. Whatever happened to "make it right, then make > > > > > it fast?" > > > > > > > > Well, I'm not thinking you did it right ;-) > > > > > > > > While I agree that the linear loop is sub-optimal, but it only really > > > > becomes a problem when you have hundreds or thousands of threads in your > > > > application, which I'll argue to be insane anyway. > > > > > > This is just not true. I've seen a very real example of a lockup with a very > > > sane number of threads (one per CPU), but on a very large machine (1024 CPUs > > > IIRC). The application set per-process CPU profiling with an interval of 1 > > > tick, which translates to 1024 timers firing off with each tick... > > > > > > Well, yes, that was broken, too, but that's the way one quite popular FORTRAN > > > compiler works... > > > > I'm not sure what side you're arguing... > > In this particular case I'm arguing against both, it seems. The old > behaviour is broken and the new one is not better. :(
OK, then we agree ;-)
> > The current (per-cpu) code is utterly broken on large machines too, I've > > asked SGI to run some tests on real numa machines (something multi-brick > > altix) and even moderately small machines with 256 cpus in them grind to > > a halt (or make progress at a snails pace) when the itimer stuff is > > enabled. > > > > Furthermore, I really dislike the per-process-per-cpu memory cost, it > > bloats applications and makes the new per-cpu alloc work rather more > > difficult than it already is. > > > > I basically think the whole process wide itimer stuff is broken by > > design, there is no way to make it work on reasonably large machines, > > the whole problem space just doesn't scale. You simply cannot maintain a > > global count without bouncing cachelines like mad, so you might as well > > accept it and do the process wide counter and bounce only a single line, > > instead of bouncing a line per-cpu. > > Very true. Unfortunately per-process itimers are prescribed by the > Single Unix Specification, so we have to cope with them in some way, > while not permitting a non-privileged process a DoS attack. This is > going to be hard, and we'll probably have to twist the specification a > bit to still conform to its wording. :((
Feel like reading the actual spec and trying to come up with a creative interpretation? :-)
> I really don't think it's a good idea to set a per-process ITIMER_PROF > to one timer tick on a large machine, but the kernel does allow any > process to do it, and then it can even cause hard freeze on some > hardware. This is _not_ acceptable. > > What is worse, we can't just limit the granularity of itimers, because > threads can come into being _after_ the itimer was set.
Currently it has jiffy granularity, right? And jiffies are different depending on some compile time constant (HZ), so can't we, for the sake of per-process itimers, pretend to have a 1 minute jiffie?
That should be as compliant as we are now, and utterly useless for everybody, thereby discouraging its use, hmm? :-) -- 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/
| |