Re: [Lse-tech] Re: multi-queue scheduler update

From: Mike Kravetz (mkravetz@sequent.com)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 16:51:35 EST


On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:49:21PM -0800, Mike Kravetz showed his lack
of internet slang understanding and wrote:
>
> It was my intention to post IIRC numbers for small thread counts today.
> However, the benchmark (not the system) seems to hang on occasion. This
> occurs on both the unmodified 2.4.0 kernel and the one which contains
> my multi-queue patch. Therefore, I'm pretty sure it is not something
> I did. :)
>
> Anyone else see anything like this before? I'll look into the reason
> for the hang, but it will delay my posting of these numbers.

I think I have found the problem. Here is a code snippet from the
benchmark Andrea posted.

void oneatwork(int thr)
{
    int i;
    while (!start) /* don't disturb pthread_create() */
        usleep(10000);

    actthreads++;
    while (!stop)
    {
        if (count)
            totalwork[thr]++;

        syscall(158); /* sys_sched_yield() */
    }
    actthreads--;
    pthread_exit(0);
}

Note that actthreads is a global variable which is being updated
by multiple threads without any form of synchronization. Because
of this actthreads sometimes never goes to zero after all worker
threads have finished. I changed actthreads to be an atomic and
used atomic operations to manipulate it. With this change, I was
able to complete one round of testing which I had not been able to
do in the past.

Does anyone maintain this benchmark code? The changes I indicate
above should be made. If you need more specifics I can provide
them.

-- 
Mike Kravetz                                 mkravetz@sequent.com
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 23 2001 - 21:00:21 EST