Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Signal scalability series
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Tue Oct 04 2011 - 13:18:37 EST
On 10/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 15:07 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 10/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > But this series can't help afaics. At least in its current state. It
> > only adds more locking to the sending paths.
> Right, so I was hoping Matt had a plan (TM)... :-)
Whatever we do with the locking, this can't remove O(nr_threads),
although read_lock() could help to reduce the contention.
> > I think, the best solution would be: never send the signal from irq
> > context, and ->siglock shouldn't disable irqs.
> Bit hard that, posix timers need to deliver signals which pretty much
> mandates we do something from irq context
Of course. We should notify a thread even if it blocks the signal.
> (and the round-trip through
> softirq context really isn't pretty nor good for performance).
No, no. I meant, it would be nice to offload the sending to the target.
The process itself should take care.
> > Probably this is possible too. I was thinking anout this when
> > set_current_blocked() was added. Unfortunately this needs a lot of
> > complications.
> Right, so the thing Thomas and I have been promoting for a while now is
> to update a signal target vector on every signal mask update. Mask
> updates should be the slow path. This would leave us with a ready target
> in O(1).
Yes. This is the "obvious" solution ;) Now that we have
set_current_blocked() this is simple. Except, of course, this blows
signal_struct and set_current_blocked() can't rely on TIF_SIGPENDING.
But we can probably add TIF_YOU_ARE_LISTED_IN_CURR_TARGET_ARRAY.
And in fact this was _one_ of the reasons for set_current_blocked().
> > Agreed. But I am not sure how much we should split the locking when
> > it comes to sending/dequeueing/etc signals. 5 locks seems too much.
> It doesn't need all 5 locks to send a signal, does it?
Depending on group/private 3 or 4. Plus ->ctrl_lock if the signal
is fatal but I don't really understand this part... Fortunately I
think this is not needed ;)
And mostly (afaics) this tries to help to dequeue the signal, not
to send. At least currently.
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/