Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Avoid select_idle_sibling() forwake_affine(.sync=true)

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:35:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:39:30AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> > It is my intuition that there are a few common objects with fairly
> > polarized behavior:  I.e. For condition variables and producer
> > consumer queues, a wakeup strongly predicts blocking.  Whereas for
> > locks protecting objects, e.g. a Mutex, would be expected to have the
> > opposite behavior.
> 
> Agreed; however none of those seem to have the property we're looking
> for.
> 
> Even produces consumer queues on their own don't generate the
> alternating patterns we're looking for with the SYNC hint.
> 
> We need a 'guarantee' that the waker is going to stop until the wakee is
> done.
> 
> What we're looking for is the typical synchronous request-reply like
> pattern -- and that doesn't seem to correlate to any one locking object.
> 
> Rather it is an inter-task relation; so task state does make sense in
> finding them. We could for instance try and infer which task is
> servicing requests; and then we know that requesting tasks will sleep
> until reply.
> 

Oh never mind, I see what you meant, the edges in that graph are the
locks.

Can't use RIPs for futexes though; you'd likely end up in the one
pthread_mutex_lock() implementation or such.
--
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/