On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 05:27:40PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 5:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 5:10 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I spent some more time on the prevent-unnecessary-wakeups patch for >> > logical/worker.c that I've been alluding to in this thread, and I found a >> > few more places where we depend on the worker periodically waking up. This >> > seems to be a common technique, so I'm beginning to wonder whether these >> > changes are worthwhile. I think there's a good chance it would become a >> > game of whac-a-mole. >> >> Aren't they all bugs, though, making our tests and maybe even real >> systems slower than they need to be?
Yeah, you're right, it's probably worth proceeding with this particular thread even if we don't end up porting the suppress-unnecessary-wakeups patch to logical/worker.c. > (Which isn't to suggest that it's your job to fix them, but please do > share what you have if you run out of whack-a-mole steam, since we > seem to have several people keen to finish those moles off.) I don't mind fixing it! There are a couple more I'd like to track down before posting another revision. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
