From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261420AbULNFZd (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:25:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261426AbULNFZd (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:25:33 -0500 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.198]:44336 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261420AbULNFZJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:25:09 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=WXFGHQNsuiuarawJ/yr7FrG24rAkYOBjUOGaQM24Q0KQI3tz2rAVAZXwT9OK06mJs9Tad3T/Y90cop6LbmyggwV9ovi5Wn78MsxSrM94iW5GadwOkA4VALKehewHlNXDv2s5SrbhRZrvvM0RkBJXoXl+LTnlQ6ULosdcm/vcPZU= Message-ID: <29495f1d04121321255eca7bc1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:25:09 -0800 From: Nish Aravamudan Reply-To: Nish Aravamudan To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: dynamic-hz Cc: andrea@suse.de, kernel@kolivas.org, pavel@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20041213202939.12285212.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20041211142317.GF16322@dualathlon.random> <20041212163547.GB6286@elf.ucw.cz> <20041212222312.GN16322@dualathlon.random> <41BCD5F3.80401@kolivas.org> <20041213030237.5b6f6178.akpm@osdl.org> <20041213111741.GR16322@dualathlon.random> <20041213032521.702efe2f.akpm@osdl.org> <29495f1d041213195451677dab@mail.gmail.com> <20041213202939.12285212.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:29:39 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Nish Aravamudan wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:25:21 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > > > > The patch only does HZ at dynamic time. But of course it's absolutely > > > > trivial to define it at compile time, it's probably a 3 liner on top of > > > > my current patch ;). However personally I don't think the three liner > > > > will worth the few seconds more spent configuring the kernel ;). > > > > > > We still have 1000-odd places which do things like > > > > > > schedule_timeout(HZ/10); > > > > Yes, yes, we do :) I replaced far more than I ever thought I could... > > There are a few issues I have with the remaining schedule_timeout() > > calls which I think fit ok with this thread... I'd especially like > > your input, Andrew, as you end up getting most of my patches from KJ. > > > > Many drivers use > > > > set_current_state(TASK_{UN,}INTERRUPTIBLE); > > schedule_timeout(1); // or some other small value < 10 > > > > This may or may not hide a dependency on a particular HZ value. If the > > code is somewhat old, perhaps the author intended the task to sleep > > for 1 jiffy when HZ was equal to 100. That meants that they ended up > > sleeping for 10 ms. If the code is new, the author intends that the > > task sleeps for 1 ms (HZ==1000). The question is, what should the > > replacement be? > > Presumably they meant 10 milliseconds. Or at least, that is the delay > which the developer did his testing with. OK, I will make a set of these changes soon, hopefully. > > If they really meant to use schedule_timeout(1) in the sense of > > highest resolution delay possible (the latter above), then they > > probably should just call schedule() directly. > > argh. Never do that. It's basically a busywait and can cause lockups if > the calling task has realtime scheduling policy. OK, I won't make any such changes in my next next set of patches. > > schedule_timeout(1) > > simply sets up a timer to fire off after 1 jiffy & then calls > > schedule() itself. The overhead of setting up a timer and the > > execution of schedule() itself probably means that the timer will go > > off in the middle of the schedule() call or very shortly thereafter (I > > think). In which case, it makes more sense to use schedule() > > directly... > > > > If they meant to schedule a delay of 10ms, then msleep() should be > > used in those cases. msleep() will also resolve the issues with 0-time > > timeouts because of rounding, as it adds 1 to the converted parameter. > > > > Obviously, changing more and more sleeps to msecs & secs will really > > help make the changing of HZ more transparent. And specifying the time > > in real time units just seems so much clearer to me. > > > > What do people think? > > I'd say that replacing them with msleep(10) is the safest approach. > Depending on what the surronding code is actually doing, of course. Thanks for the info! -Nish