linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
	Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] lockless, scalable get_pid(), for_each_process() elimination, 2.5.35-BK
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:54:53 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209181939150.24891-100000@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209181026550.1230-100000@home.transmeta.com>


On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> ... the worst-case-behaviour is basically impossible to trigger with any 
> real load. 
> 
> The worst case does not happen for "100k threads" like you've made it 
> sound like.
> 
> The worst case happens for "100k threads consecutive in the pid space".

i always said consecutive PID range, in perhaps every previous mail.

consecutive PID allocation is actually something applications do pretty
often.

or Apache threads with the 'max requests handled per thread' config value
set to infinite, and a couple of thousand threads started up during init.

or a phone line server that handles 100 thousand phone lines starts up
100K threads, one per line. No need to restart any of those threads, and
in fact it will never happen. They do use helper threads to do less timing
critical stuff. Now the whole phone system locks up for 1.5 minutes every
2 weeks or 2 months when the PID range overflows, how great. Now make that
400 thousand phonelines, the lockup will will last 24 minutes.

well, by this argument, Windows XP only crashes every couple of weeks, it
happens rarely, who cares. Windows probably reboots faster than Linux will
allocate the next PID, so it has better RT latencies. Phone server
applications are inherently restartable anyway, even across hw crashes.

and of course any quasy-RT behavior of the Linux kernel (which we *do*
have in specific well-controlled scenarios) can be thrown out the window
if processes or threads are allocated/destroyed.

and even assuming that concecutive PIDs are a non-problem. Is fast PID
allocation really that bad? Is a more compressed PID range necesserily
bad? Is the avoidance of for_each_process and for_each_thread loops that
bad? Even the current untuned patch, which admittedly duplicates some
functionality (such as the pidhash), performs on par with the unpatched
kernel, in thread creation benchmarks. (which is pretty much the only
place that can show any increase in PID allocation/management overhead.)

	Ingo



  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-09-18 17:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-09-17 23:06 [patch] lockless, scalable get_pid(), for_each_process() elimination, 2.5.35-BK Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18  0:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18  1:27   ` David S. Miller
2002-09-18  2:22     ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 10:11   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 14:28     ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 12:32 ` Andries Brouwer
2002-09-18 12:56   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 16:17     ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 16:46       ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 16:57       ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 18:28     ` Andries Brouwer
2002-09-18 18:27       ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 19:00       ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 20:11         ` Andries Brouwer
2002-09-18 20:29           ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 21:15             ` Andries Brouwer
2002-09-19  3:05               ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-19 13:11                 ` Andries Brouwer
2002-09-21 12:56                   ` quadratic behaviour Andries Brouwer
2002-09-21 17:06                     ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-21 17:35                       ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-21 17:49                       ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-21 17:46                         ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 14:49   ` [patch] lockless, scalable get_pid(), for_each_process() elimination, 2.5.35-BK William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 15:01     ` Cort Dougan
2002-09-18 15:33       ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 15:31         ` yodaiken
2002-09-18 15:35         ` Cort Dougan
2002-09-18 15:37       ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-18 15:50       ` Alan Cox
2002-09-18 18:31     ` Andries Brouwer
2002-09-18 18:32       ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 16:15   ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 16:32     ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-18 16:48       ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 17:31         ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 21:46         ` Rogier Wolff
2002-09-18 16:41     ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 16:45       ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 16:59         ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 17:36         ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 17:36           ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 17:46             ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 17:47               ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 17:59             ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 17:50               ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-18 18:07                 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-19 19:27           ` Martin Mares
2002-09-17 15:31             ` Pavel Machek
2002-09-19 20:07             ` Richard B. Johnson
2002-09-18 16:46     ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-18 16:53       ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 17:00         ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-18 17:16           ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 17:28             ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 17:38           ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 17:24         ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 17:30           ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 17:35             ` Cort Dougan
2002-09-18 17:43               ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-18 17:48               ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-18 17:57                 ` Cort Dougan
2002-09-18 18:08                   ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-18 18:28                     ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 18:33                       ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-18 18:51                         ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 18:56                           ` interruptible_sleep_on_timeout() and signals Imran Badr
2002-09-19  7:16                             ` David Woodhouse
2002-09-18 19:53                       ` [patch] lockless, scalable get_pid(), for_each_process() elimination, 2.5.35-BK Martin J. Bligh
2002-09-22  0:34                   ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-09-22 10:02                     ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-22 15:27                       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-09-18 18:02               ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 17:58                 ` Cort Dougan
2002-09-18 18:14                   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 17:54             ` Alan Cox
2002-09-18 17:54             ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2002-09-18 18:00               ` yodaiken
2002-09-18 18:21                 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-09-18 18:33                   ` yodaiken
2002-09-18 16:55     ` Alan Cox

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=Pine.LNX.4.44.0209181939150.24891-100000@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=aebr@win.tue.nl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    --cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).