Re: [1/1] CBUS: new very fast (for insert operations) message busbased on kenel connector.

[Andrew Morton]

Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:59 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:26 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > +static int cbus_event_thread(void *data)
> > > > >  > > +{
> > > > >  > > +	int i, non_empty = 0, empty = 0;
> > > > >  > > +	struct cbus_event_container *c;
> > > > >  > > +
> > > > >  > > +	daemonize(cbus_name);
> > > > >  > > +	allow_signal(SIGTERM);
> > > > >  > > +	set_user_nice(current, 19);
> > > > >  > 
> > > > >  > Please use the kthread api for managing this thread.
> > > > >  > 
> > > > >  > Is a new kernel thread needed?
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Logic behind cbus is following: 
> > > > >  1. make insert operation return as soon as possible,
> > > > >  2. deferring actual message delivering to the safe time
> > > > > 
> > > > >  That thread does second point.
> > > > 
> > > > But does it need a new thread rather than using the existing keventd?
> > > 
> > > Yes, it is much cleaner [especially from performance tuning point] 
> > > to use own kernel thread than pospone all work to the queued work.
> > > 
> > 
> > Why?  Unless keventd is off doing something else (rare), it should be
> > exactly equivalent.  And if keventd _is_ off doing something else then that
> > will slow down this kernel thread too, of course.
> 
> keventd does very hard jobs on some of my test machines which 
> for example route big amount of traffic.

As I said - that's going to cause _your_ kernel thread to be slowed down as
well.

I mean, it's just a choice between two ways of multiplexing the CPU.  One
is via a context switch in schedule() and the other is via list traversal
in run_workqueue().  The latter will be faster.

> > Plus keventd is thread-per-cpu and quite possibly would be faster.
> 
> I experimented with several usage cases for CBUS and it was proven 
> to be the fastest case when only one sending thread exists which manages
> only very limited amount of messages at a time [like 10 in CBUS
> currently]

Maybe that's because the cbus data structures are insufficiently
percpuified.  On really big machines that single kernel thread will be a
big bottleneck.

> without direct awakening [that is why wake_up() is commented in
> cbus_insert()].

You mean the

	interruptible_sleep_on_timeout(&cbus_wait_queue, 10);

?  (That should be HZ/100, btw).

That seems a bit kludgy - someone could queue 10000 messages in that time,
although they'll probably run out of memory first, if it's doing
GFP_ATOMIC.

Introducing an up-to-ten millisecond latency seems a lot worse than some
reduction in peak bandwidth - it's not as if pumping 100000 events/sec is a
likely use case.  Using prepare_to_wait/finish_wait will provide some
speedup in SMP environments due to reduced cacheline transfers.

> If too many deferred insert works will be called simultaneously
> [which may happen with keventd] it will slow down insert operations
> noticeably.

What is a "deferred insert work"?  Insertion is always synchronous?

> I did not try that case with the keventd but with one kernel thread 
> it was tested and showed worse performance.

But your current implementation has only one kernel thread?

-
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/