On 18.02.2012 22:40, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 18/02/2012 21:42 Alexander Motin said the following:
On 18.02.2012 21:05, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Just want to double-check myself.
It seems that currently, thanks to event timers, we mostly should be able to
schedule a hardware timer to fire at almost arbitrary moment with very fine
precision.
OTOH, our callout subsystem still seems to be completely tick oriented in the
sense that all timeouts are specified and kept in ticks.
As a result, it's impossible to use e.g. nanosleep(2) with a precision better
than HZ.
How deeply ticks are ingrained into callout(9)? Are they used only as a measure
of time? Or are there any dependencies on them being integers, like for
indexing, etc?
In other words, how hard it would be to replace ticks with e.g. bintime as an
internal representation of time in callout(9) [leaving interfaces alone for the
start]? Is it easier to retrofit that code or to replace it with something new?
Pending callouts are now stored in large array of unsorted lists, where last
bits of callout time is the array index. It is quite effective for insert/delete
operation. It is ineffective for getting next event time needed for new event
timers, but it is rare operation. Using arbitrary time values in that case is
very problematic. It would require complete internal redesign.
I see. Thank you for the insight!
One possible hack that I can think of is to use "pseudo-ticks" in the callout
implementation instead of real ticks. E.g. such a pseudo-tick could be set
equal to 1 microsecond instead of 1/hz (it could be tunable). Then, of course,
instead of driving the callouts via hardclock/softclock, they would have to be
driven directly from event timers. And they would have to use current
microseconds uptime instead of ticks, obviously. This would also require a
revision of types used to store timeout values. Current 'int' would not be
adequate anymore, it seems.
I don't think it will work. With so high frequency it will make callouts
distribution over the array almost random. While insert / remove
operations will still be cheap, search for the next event will be 1000
times more expensive. Unless you propose increase array size 1000 times,
it will not be better then just using single unsorted link,
It looks like Timer_Wheel_T from ACE has some useful enhancements in this
direction.
BTW, it seems that with int ticks and HZ of 1000, ticks would overflow from
INT_MAX to INT_MIN in ~24 days. I can imagine that some code might get confused
by such an overflow. But that's a different topic.
Probably you are right. I've seen few dangerous comparisons in ULE code.
--
Alexander Motin
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
