Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Signal scalability series
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Sat Oct 01 2011 - 09:04:21 EST
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 11:16 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> I also think Thomas/Peter mentioned something about latency in
> delivering timer signals because of contention on the per-process
> siglock. They might have some more details on that.
Right, so signal delivery is O(nr_threads), which precludes being able
to deliver signals from hardirq context, leading to lots of ugly in -rt.
The hope is that this work is a stepping stone to O(1) signal delivery.
Breaking up the multitude of uses of siglock certainly seems worthwhile
esp. if it also allows for a cleanup of the horrid mess called
signal_struct (which really should be called process_struct or so).
And yes, aside from that the siglock can be quite contended because its
pretty much the one lock serializing all of the process wide state.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/