Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

Hi! On Sun 2016-06-26 12:21:46, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Umm. I'm not sure if you should be designing kernel... > > > > I have alarm clock application. It does sleep(60) many times till its > > time to wake me up. I'll

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

Hi! On Sun 2016-06-26 12:21:46, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Umm. I'm not sure if you should be designing kernel... > > > > I have alarm clock application. It does sleep(60) many times till its > > time to wake me up. I'll be very angry

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Umm. I'm not sure if you should be designing kernel... > > I have alarm clock application. It does sleep(60) many times till its > time to wake me up. I'll be very angry if sleep(60) takes 65 seconds > without some very, very

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Umm. I'm not sure if you should be designing kernel... > > I have alarm clock application. It does sleep(60) many times till its > time to wake me up. I'll be very angry if sleep(60) takes 65 seconds > without some very, very good reason.

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

Hi! > > FWIW, testing with ltp, I noticed a new failure in logs. It turns out > > to be intermittent, but the testcase mostly fails. > > You forgot to cc the LTP folks ... > > > rtbox:~ # > > /usr/local/ltp/conformance/interfaces/sigtimedwait/sigtimedwait_1-1.run-test > > Test FAILED:

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

Hi! > > FWIW, testing with ltp, I noticed a new failure in logs. It turns out > > to be intermittent, but the testcase mostly fails. > > You forgot to cc the LTP folks ... > > > rtbox:~ # > > /usr/local/ltp/conformance/interfaces/sigtimedwait/sigtimedwait_1-1.run-test > > Test FAILED:

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 11:06 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 10:44 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > FWIW, testing with ltp, I noticed a new failure in logs. It turns > > out > > > to be intermittent, but the testcase

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 11:06 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 10:44 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > FWIW, testing with ltp, I noticed a new failure in logs. It turns > > out > > > to be intermittent, but the testcase

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 10:44 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > FWIW, testing with ltp, I noticed a new failure in logs. It turns > out > > to be intermittent, but the testcase mostly fails. > > You forgot to cc the LTP folks ... This ain't

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 10:44 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > FWIW, testing with ltp, I noticed a new failure in logs. It turns > out > > to be intermittent, but the testcase mostly fails. > > You forgot to cc the LTP folks ... This ain't

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > FWIW, testing with ltp, I noticed a new failure in logs. It turns out > to be intermittent, but the testcase mostly fails. You forgot to cc the LTP folks ... > rtbox:~ # >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > FWIW, testing with ltp, I noticed a new failure in logs. It turns out > to be intermittent, but the testcase mostly fails. You forgot to cc the LTP folks ... > rtbox:~ # >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 13:26 +, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > This is the second version of the timer wheel rework series. The first series > can be found here: > >http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160613070440.950649...@linutronix.de > > The series is also available in git: > >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 13:26 +, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > This is the second version of the timer wheel rework series. The first series > can be found here: > >http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160613070440.950649...@linutronix.de > > The series is also available in git: > >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 2016-06-20 at 15:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this configurable as a >> 1000HZ >>option so datacenter folks can use this and people who don't care >> and

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 2016-06-20 at 15:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this configurable as a >> 1000HZ >>option so datacenter folks can use this and people who don't care >> and want >>better

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, 2016-06-20 at 15:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >  > 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this configurable as a > 1000HZ >    option so datacenter folks can use this and people who don't care > and want >    better batching for power can use the 4ms thingy. > It might be

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, 2016-06-20 at 15:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >  > 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this configurable as a > 1000HZ >    option so datacenter folks can use this and people who don't care > and want >    better batching for power can use the 4ms thingy. > It might be

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

so is there really an issue? sounds like KISS principle can apply On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > >> > 2) Cut off at

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

so is there really an issue? sounds like KISS principle can apply On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > >> > 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:13:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:26:28PM -, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > This is the second version of the timer wheel rework series. The first > > > series > > > can be found

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:13:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:26:28PM -, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > This is the second version of the timer wheel rework series. The first > > > series > > > can be found

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:26:28PM -, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > This is the second version of the timer wheel rework series. The first series > can be found here: > >http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160613070440.950649...@linutronix.de > > The series is also available in git: > >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:26:28PM -, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > This is the second version of the timer wheel rework series. The first series > can be found here: > >http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160613070440.950649...@linutronix.de > > The series is also available in git: > >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:26:28PM -, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > This is the second version of the timer wheel rework series. The first > > series > > can be found here: > > > >http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160613070440.950649...@linutronix.de

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:26:28PM -, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > This is the second version of the timer wheel rework series. The first > > series > > can be found here: > > > >http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160613070440.950649...@linutronix.de

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this configurable as a 1000HZ > >option so datacenter folks can use this and people who don't care and > > want >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this configurable as a 1000HZ > >option so datacenter folks can use this and people who don't care and > > want > >better batching

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this configurable as a 1000HZ >option so datacenter folks can use this and people who don't care and want >better batching for power can use the 4ms thingy. if

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > 2) Cut off at 37hrs for HZ=1000. We could make this configurable as a 1000HZ >option so datacenter folks can use this and people who don't care and want >better batching for power can use the 4ms thingy. if there really is one

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote: > To avoid increasing probability of such events we would need to have > at least 4 ms difference between the RTO timer and delack timer. > > Meaning we have to increase both of them and increase P99 latencies of > RPC workloads. > > Maybe a switch to

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote: > To avoid increasing probability of such events we would need to have > at least 4 ms difference between the RTO timer and delack timer. > > Meaning we have to increase both of them and increase P99 latencies of > RPC workloads. > > Maybe a switch to

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

>To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage size >by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level from >1ms to 4ms. According to our data, there is no user which relies on that >1ms granularity and 99% of those timers are canceled

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

>To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage size >by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level from >1ms to 4ms. According to our data, there is no user which relies on that >1ms granularity and 99% of those timers are canceled

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> > >> >To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage >> > size >> >by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level >> >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> > >> >To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage >> > size >> >by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level >> > from >> >1ms to

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > >To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage size > >by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level > > from > >1ms to 4ms. According to our data, there is no user which relies on that > >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > >To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage size > >by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level > > from > >1ms to 4ms. According to our data, there is no user which relies on that > >

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

> >To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage size >by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level from >1ms to 4ms. According to our data, there is no user which relies on that >1ms granularity and 99% of those timers are canceled

Re: [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel

> >To achieve this capacity with HZ=1000 without increasing the storage size >by another level, we reduced the granularity of the first wheel level from >1ms to 4ms. According to our data, there is no user which relies on that >1ms granularity and 99% of those timers are canceled