Thread (14 messages) flat view 14 messages, 3 authors, 2021-07-26

Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4 v0.3] sched/umcg: RFC: implement UMCG syscalls

From: Thierry Delisle <hidden>
Date: 2021-07-19 18:42:15
Also in: lkml

 > Latency/efficiency: on worker wakeup an idle server can be picked from
 > the list and context-switched into synchronously, on the same CPU.
 > Using FDs and select/poll/epoll will add extra layers of abstractions;
 > synchronous context-switches (not yet fully implemented in UMCG) will
 > most likely be impossible. This patchset seems much more efficient and
 > lightweight than whatever can be built on top of FDs.

I can believe that.

Are you planning to support separate scheduling instances within a 
single user
space? That is having multiple sets of server threads and workers can 
only run
within a specific set.

I believe the problem with the idle_servers_ptr as specified is that it 
is not
possible to reclaim used nodes safely. I don't see any indication of which
nodes the kernel can concurrently access and on which some memory 
reclamation
scheme could be based.

What is the benefit of having users maintain themselves a list of idle 
servers
rather than each servers marking themselves as 'out of work' and having the
kernel maintain the list?
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help