Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:25:09 -0800 | From | Nish Aravamudan <> | Subject | Re: dynamic-hz |
| |
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:29:39 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:25:21 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > The patch only does HZ at dynamic time. But of course it's absolutely > > > > trivial to define it at compile time, it's probably a 3 liner on top of > > > > my current patch ;). However personally I don't think the three liner > > > > will worth the few seconds more spent configuring the kernel ;). > > > > > > We still have 1000-odd places which do things like > > > > > > schedule_timeout(HZ/10); > > > > Yes, yes, we do :) I replaced far more than I ever thought I could... > > There are a few issues I have with the remaining schedule_timeout() > > calls which I think fit ok with this thread... I'd especially like > > your input, Andrew, as you end up getting most of my patches from KJ. > > > > Many drivers use > > > > set_current_state(TASK_{UN,}INTERRUPTIBLE); > > schedule_timeout(1); // or some other small value < 10 > > > > This may or may not hide a dependency on a particular HZ value. If the > > code is somewhat old, perhaps the author intended the task to sleep > > for 1 jiffy when HZ was equal to 100. That meants that they ended up > > sleeping for 10 ms. If the code is new, the author intends that the > > task sleeps for 1 ms (HZ==1000). The question is, what should the > > replacement be? > > Presumably they meant 10 milliseconds. Or at least, that is the delay > which the developer did his testing with.
OK, I will make a set of these changes soon, hopefully.
> > If they really meant to use schedule_timeout(1) in the sense of > > highest resolution delay possible (the latter above), then they > > probably should just call schedule() directly. > > argh. Never do that. It's basically a busywait and can cause lockups if > the calling task has realtime scheduling policy.
OK, I won't make any such changes in my next next set of patches.
> > schedule_timeout(1) > > simply sets up a timer to fire off after 1 jiffy & then calls > > schedule() itself. The overhead of setting up a timer and the > > execution of schedule() itself probably means that the timer will go > > off in the middle of the schedule() call or very shortly thereafter (I > > think). In which case, it makes more sense to use schedule() > > directly... > > > > If they meant to schedule a delay of 10ms, then msleep() should be > > used in those cases. msleep() will also resolve the issues with 0-time > > timeouts because of rounding, as it adds 1 to the converted parameter. > > > > Obviously, changing more and more sleeps to msecs & secs will really > > help make the changing of HZ more transparent. And specifying the time > > in real time units just seems so much clearer to me. > > > > What do people think? > > I'd say that replacing them with msleep(10) is the safest approach. > Depending on what the surronding code is actually doing, of course.
Thanks for the info!
-Nish - 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/
| |