Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 05:40:28AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 09:47:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:27:31PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > OK.  What would you suggest instead?  If all we do is to revert the
> > > 
> > > Hang checker should have two timer phases:
> > > 
> > > Timer fires first time:
> > > - Save context switch counter on that. Force a reschedule to some
> > > work queue. Rearm timer
> > > 
> > > Timer fires again:
> > > - Check reschedule count. If the reschedule count changed
> > > it was a real hang, otherwise ignore.
> > 
> > I could take that approach, but the RT guys aren't going to thank me for
> > the wakeup associated with the work queue.  I suppose that I could use
> 
> They can disable the hang timer if it's really problem.
> 
> If they cannot tolerate a single context switch they likely 
> cannot tolerate a timer firing either.

Ah, but I make the timer fire on some other CPU.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/