Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: Periodic clock tick considered harmful (was: Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible) | Date | Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:45:56 +0200 |
| |
Thunder from the hill wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 dank@kegel.com wrote: >> OK, so I'm just an ignorant member of the peanut gallery, but >> I'd like to hear a real kernel hacker explain why this isn't >> the way to go. > > The only thing that was mentioned yet was the amount of stuff that depends > on periodic ticks. If we just tick unperiodically, we'd fail for sure, but > if we make these instances depend on another timer - we won. > > I think a good scheduler can handle this and should also be able to > determine a halfaway optimal tick rate for the current load.
The current approach on s390 is stop the timer tick only for idle cpus, because that's where it hurts. A busy system can just keep on using 100 (or 1000) Hz timers. The jiffies value then gets updated from the time stamp counter when an interrupt happens on an idle CPU.
See Martin Schwidefsky's recent post for code:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102578746520177&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102578746420174&w=2
Arnd <>< - 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/
| |