Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched, timer: Use atomics for thread_group_cputimer to improve scalability

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jason Low <jason.low2@xxxxxx> wrote:

> While running a database workload, we found a scalability issue with itimers.
> 
> Much of the problem was caused by the thread_group_cputimer spinlock.

So I'm fine with the basic principle, but in the hope that maybe 
posix-cpu-timers will grow similar optimizations in the future, it 
would help to have the new data type factored out better, not 
open-coded:

>  struct thread_group_cputimer {
> -	struct task_cputime cputime;
> +	atomic64_t utime;
> +	atomic64_t stime;
> +	atomic64_t sum_exec_runtime;
>  	int running;
> -	raw_spinlock_t lock;
>  };

So after your changes we still have a separate:

struct task_cputime {
        cputime_t utime;
        cputime_t stime;
        unsigned long long sum_exec_runtime;
};

Which then weirdly overlaps with a different structure on a different 
abstraction level:

 struct thread_group_cputimer {
	atomic64_t utime;
	atomic64_t stime;
	atomic64_t sum_exec_runtime;
 	int running;
 };

So I think it would be more obvious what's going on if we introduced 
an atomic task_cputime structure:

 struct task_cputime_atomic {
	atomic64_t utime;
	atomic64_t stime;
	atomic64_t sum_exec_runtime;
 };

and put that into 'struct thread_group_cputimer':

 struct thread_group_cputimer {
	struct task_cputime_atomic cputime_atomic;
  	int running;
 };

Maybe even factor out the main update and reading methods into 
expressively named helper inlines?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/