On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 18:09 +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
The only question I have is why the priority of the callback is set to
priority of the task calling hrtimer_start() (current->normal_prio). That
seems like an odd binding to me. Shouldn't the finding of the priority be moved over to the
posix-timer code, where it is needed, and be given as a parameter to
hrtimer_start()?
Was the simplest way to do.
Yes, when you only use the hrtimers to implement signals. But what if you
use them for something different?
In rtmutex.c, where a hrtimer is used as a timeout on a mutex, wouldn't it
make more sense to use current->prio than current->normal_prio if the task
is boosted when it starts to wait on a mutex.
Not sure about that.
Let say you have a bunch of callback running at priority 1 and then the
next hrt timer with priority 99 expires. Then the callback which
is running will be boosted to priority 99. So the overall latency at
priority 99 will at least the latency of the worst hrtimer callback.
And worse: What if the callback running is blocked on a mutex? Will the
owner of the mutex be boosted as well? Not according to the code in
sched.c. Therefore you get priority inversion to priority 1. That is the
worst case hrtimer latency is that of priority 1.
Therefore, a simpler and more robust design would be to give the thread
priority 99 as a default - just as the posix_cpu_timer thread. Then the
system designer can move it around with chrt when needed.
In fact you can say the current design have both the worst cases of having
it running as priority 99 and at priority 1!
We had this before and it is horrible.
"Horrible" in what respect?
Another complicated design would be to make a task for each priority.
Then the interrupt wakes the highest priority one, which handles the first
callback and awakes the next one etc.
Uurgh. Thats not a serious proposal ?
No, not really. And then a little bit in a generalized way:
The kernel could have these threads as general working threads on which
all kind of callbacks could be executed at their right priority.
But, ofcourse, having 100 tasks sitting around per CPU is huge waste of
memory. But maybe some kind of pooling could be made?
As I said in a another mail some time back: Having 100 different RT
priorities doesn't make sense. You can at most need 10 anyway.
A nice solution would be to enqueue the timer into the task struct of
the thread which is target of the signal, wake that thread in a special
state which only runs the callback and then does the signal delivery.
What if the thread is running?
The scary thing on this is to get the locking straight, but it might
well worth to try it. That way we would burden the softirq delivery to
the thread and maybe save a couple of task switches.
tglx
Hmm, a practical thing to do would be to make a system where you can post
jobs in a thread. These jobs can then be done in thread context
around schedule or just before the task returns to user-space.
Esben
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
