Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched,futex: Provide delayed wakeup list

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Sat, 2013-11-23 at 13:01 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I used to have a patch to schedule() that would always immediately fall
> > through and only actually block on the second call; it illustrated the
> > problem really well, in fact so well the kernels fails to boot most
> > times.
> 
> I found the below on my filesystem -- making it apply shouldn't be hard.
> Making it work is the same effort as that patch you sent, we need to
> guarantee all schedule() callers can deal with not actually sleeping --
> aka. spurious wakeups.

Thanks, I'll definitely try the patch and see what comes up.

> 
> I don't think anybody ever got that thing to run reliable enough to see
> if the idea proposed in the patch made any difference to actual
> workloads though.

Since your idea can also be applied to sysv sems (patch 3/3 back then),
I can definitely do some Oracle runs which IIRC, also likes doing
multiple wakeups at once. In any case this patch deals very nicely with
our customer workload, which is why I believe its particularly good
here.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/