From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Introduce TASK_NOLOAD and TASK_IDLE
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 17:11:09 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150511171109.46e07c67@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1505090910060.1671@ja.home.ssi.bg>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1993 bytes --]
On Sat, 9 May 2015 11:49:01 +0300 (EEST) Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Subject: sched: Introduce TASK_NOLOAD and TASK_IDLE
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Date: Fri May 8 14:23:45 CEST 2015
> >
> > Currently people use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE to idle kthreads and wait for
> > 'work' because TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE contributes to the loadavg. Having
> > all idle kthreads contribute to the loadavg is somewhat silly.
> >
> > Now mostly this works OK, because kthreads have all their signals
> > masked. However there's a few sites where this is causing problems and
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE should be used, except for that loadavg issue.
> >
> > This patch adds TASK_NOLOAD which, when combined with
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE avoids the loadavg accounting.
> >
> > As most of imagined usage sites are loops where a thread wants to
> > idle, waiting for work, a helper TASK_IDLE is introduced.
>
> After checking our code in net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c,
> sync_thread_master(), we may also need some wrappers:
>
> - schedule_timeout_idle (instead of schedule_timeout call):
> __set_current_state(TASK_IDLE);
> return schedule_timeout(timeout);
>
> - we here are really idle, so "N" looks ok
yes, I would want
wait_event_idle_timeout() and wait_event_idle()
but I'll be happy to take whatever I can get :-)
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> - pair of __wait_event_idle(wq, condition) and
> wait_event_idle(wq, condition) macros
>
> - we here are write-blocked for socket, not sure
> if this blocked vs idle difference is useful to
> represent, in new bit for this blocked state "B"=2048,
> with 2 TASK_NOLOAD variants: N(idle) and B(blocked,
> 2|1024|2048, eg. for read-blocked or write-blocked).
> It will need additional argument 'state'/'blocked' for
> *wait_event_idle().
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 811 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-11 7:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-08 12:47 Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-09 8:49 ` Julian Anastasov
2015-05-11 7:11 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2015-05-11 14:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-11 19:34 ` Julian Anastasov
2015-05-12 12:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-13 7:22 ` Julian Anastasov
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=20150511171109.46e07c67@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=ja@ssi.bg \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome