Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:15:49 -0700 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHSET] timer: clean up initializers and implement irqsafe timers |
| |
Hello, Thomas.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:55:16PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > * mod_delayed_work() can't be used from IRQ handlers. > > This function does not exist. So what?
It makes the workqueue users messy. It's difficult to get completely correct and subtle errors are difficult to detect / verify.
> > * __cancel_delayed_work() can't use the usual try_to_grab_pending() > > which handles all three states but instead only deals with the first > > state using a separate implementation. There's no way to make a > > delayed_work not pending from IRQ handlers. > > And why is that desired and justifies the mess you are trying to > create in the timer code?
Because API forcing its users to be messy is stupid.
> > * The context / behavior differences among cancel_delayed_work(), > > __cancel_delayed_work(), cancel_delayed_work_sync() are subtle and > > confusing (the first two are mostly historical tho). > > We have a lot of subtle differences in interfaces for similar > reasons.
And we should work to make them better.
> > This patchset implements irqsafe timers. For an irqsafe timer, IRQ is > > not enabled from dispatch till the end of its execution making it safe > > to drain the timer regardless of context. This will enable cleaning > > up delayed_work interface. > > By burdening crap on the timer code. We had a similar context case > handling in the original hrtimers code and Linus went berserk on it. > There is no real good reason to reinvent it in a different flavour. > > Your general approach about workqueues seems to be adding hacks into > other sensitive code paths [ see __schedule() ]. Can we please stop > that? workqueues are not so special to justify that.
The schedule thing worked out pretty well, didn't it? If it improves the kernel in general, I don't see why timer shouldn't participate in it. Timer ain't that special either. However, it does suck to add one-off feature which isn't used by anyone else but I couldn't find a better way.
So, if you can think of something better, sure. Let's see.
> Right now delayed work arms a timer, whose callback enqueues the work > and wakes the worker thread, which then executes the work. > > So what about changing delayed_work into: > > struct delayed_work { > struct work_struct work; > unsigned long expires; > }; > > Now when delayed work gets scheduled it gets enqueued into a separate > list in the workqueue core with the proper worker lock held. Then > check the expiry time of the new work against the current expiry time > of a timer in the worker itself.
Work items aren't assigned to worker on queue. It's a shared worker pool. Workers take work items when they can.
> If the new expiry time is after the > current expiry time, nothing to do. If the new expiry is before the > current expiry time or the timer is not armed, then (re)arm the timer. > > When the timer expires it wakes the worker and that evaluates the > delayed list for expired works and executes them and rearms the timer > if necessary.
How are you gonna decide which worker a delayed work item should be queued on? What if the work item before it takes a very long time to finish? Do we migrate those work items to a different worker?
> To cancel delayed work you don't have to worry about the timer > callback being executed at all, simply because the timer callback is > just a wakeup of the worker and not fiddling with the work itself. If > the work is removed before the worker thread runs, life goes on as > usual. > > So all you have to do is to remove the work from the delayed list. If > the timer is armed, just leave it alone and let it fire. Canceling > delayed work is probably not a high frequency operation. > > In fact that would make cancel_delayed_work and cancel_work basically > the same operation. > > I have no idea how many concurrent delayed works are on the fly, so I > can't tell whether a simple ordered list is sufficient or if you need > a tree which is better suited for a large number of sorted items. But > that's a trivial to solve detail.
Aside from work <-> worker association confusion, you're basically suggesting for workqueue to implement its own tvec_base in suboptimal way. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |