mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	gaxt <gaxt@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 07:55:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030817065501.GA1105@mail.jlokier.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20030817072115.0198f398@pop.gmx.net>

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >The point of the mechanism is to submit system calls in an
> >asynchronous fashion, after all.  A proper task scheduling is
> >inappropriate when all we'd like to do is initiate the syscall and
> >continue processing, just as if it were an async I/O request.
> 
> Ok, so you'd want a class where you could register an "exception handler" 
> prior to submitting a system call, and any subsequent schedule would be 
> treated as an exception?  (they'd have to be nestable exceptions too 
> right?... <imagines stack explosions> egad:)

Well, apart from not resembling exceptions, and no they don't nest :)

You may be wondering what happens when I do five stat() calls, all of
which should be asynchronous (topical: to get the best out of the
elevator).

Nested?  Not quite.  At each stat() call that blocks for I/O, its
shadow task becomes active; that creates its own shadow task (pulling
a kernel task from userspace's cache of them), then continues to
perform the next item of work, which is the next stat().

The result is five kernel threads, each blocked on I/O inside a stat()
call, exactly as desired.  A sixth kernel thread, the only one running
of my program, is continuing the work of the program.

Soon, each of the I/O bound threads unblocks, returns to userspace,
stores its result, queues the next work of this state machine, adds
this kernel task to userspace's cache, and goes to sleep.

As you can see, this achieves asynchronous system calls which are too
complex for aio(*), best use of the I/O elevator, and 100% CPU
utilisation doing useful calculations.

Other user/kernel scheduler couplings are possible, but what I'm
describing doesn't ask for much(**).  Just the right behaviour from
the kernel's scheduling heuristic: namely, waker not preempted by
wakee.  Seems to be the way it's going anyway.

-- Jamie

(*) Performing a complex operation like open() or link()
    asynchronously requires a kernel context for each operation in
    progress, as it isn't practical to recode those as state machines.
    In a sense, this sequence is close to an optimal way
    to dispatch these I/O operations concurrently.

  reply	other threads:[~2003-08-17  6:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-08-15 15:49 [PATCH] O16int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-08-15 18:26 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-15 18:45   ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-08-16  2:31   ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-18 15:46     ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-18 15:43       ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-18 19:48         ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-18 22:46           ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-15 19:00 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-16  2:14   ` [PATCH]O16.1int was " Con Kolivas
2003-08-15 21:01 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-15 23:03 ` Scheduler activations (IIRC) question Jamie Lokier
2003-08-15 23:54   ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-16  0:54     ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16  6:14       ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-16 14:18         ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17  5:51           ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17  6:55             ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2003-08-17  7:05               ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-17  8:34               ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17 17:12                 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 17:15                   ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-08-17 18:26                     ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 18:27                   ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17 18:29                     ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 18:46                     ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16 20:54         ` Ingo Oeser
2003-08-16 21:39           ` Jamie Lokier
     [not found]             ` <20030817144203.J670@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de>
2003-08-17 20:02               ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-18  0:23                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-18 10:38                 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-08-18 13:09                   ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16  7:01 ` [PATCH] O16int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-08-18 10:08 ` Apurva Mehta
2003-08-18 10:30   ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-18 12:13     ` Apurva Mehta

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030817065501.GA1105@mail.jlokier.co.uk \
    --to=jamie@shareable.org \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=gaxt@rogers.com \
    --cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®