lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] High-res-timers part 2 (x86 platform code) take 5.1
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>
> george anzinger <george@mvista.com> writes:
>
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, george anzinger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch, in conjunction with the "core" high-res-timers
> > > > patch implements high resolution timers on the i386
> > > > platforms.
> > >
> > > I really don't get the notion of partial ticks, and quite frankly, this
> > > isn't going into my tree until some major distribution kicks me in the
> > > head and explains to me why the hell we have partial ticks instead of just
> > > making the ticks shorter.
> > >
> > Well, the notion is to provide timers that have resolution
> > down into the micro seconds. Since this take a bit more
> > overhead, we just set up an interrupt on an as needed
> > basis. This is why we define both a high res and a low res
> > clock. Timers on the low res clock will always use the 1/HZ
> > tick to drive them and thus do not introduce any additional
> > overhead. If this is all that is needed the configure
> > option can be left off and only these timers will be
> > available.
> >
> > On the other hand, if a user requires better resolution,
> > s/he just turns on the high-res option and incures the
> > overhead only when it is used and then only at timer expire
> > time. Note that the only way to access a high-res timer is
> > via the POSIX clocks and timers API. They are not available
> > to select or any other system call.
> >
> > Making ticks shorter causes extra overhead ALL the time,
> > even when it is not needed. Higher resolution is not free
> > in any case, but it is much closer to free with this patch
> > than by increasing HZ (which, of course, can still be
> > done). Overhead wise and resolution wise, for timers, we
> > would be better off with a 1/HZ tick and the "on demand"
> > high-res interrupts this patch introduces.
>
> ??? The issue of ticks is separate from the issue of how often
> timer interrupts fire. Ticks just becomes the maximum resolution
> you can support/express.
>
> If it makes sense to have two maximum tick resolutions. The normal
> application maximum tick rate and the special task maximum tick
> rate it is probably worth making this only available as a capability
> or an rlimit.
>
I could support a notion that to use the high-res clock for
a timer the user would need a particular capability. After
all we do the same for the real time priority.

Does this get us any closer to acceptance in 2.5?
--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site