lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: slow nanosleep?
From
Date
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote on 2010/09/08 11:51:13:
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote on 2010/09/08 10:24:49:
> > >
> > > Le mercredi 08 septembre 2010 à 10:04 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> > >
> > > > That makes litte difference:
> > > > root@localhost ~ # ./nanosleep
> > > > nanosleep
> > > > req:0 :0
> > > > tv_res:0 :112
> > > >
> > >
> > > Here, result is 30 (with prctl())
> > > instead of 95 (without)
> >
> > On x86 I notice a difference:
> > 7 vs 57.
> > however select is still faster: 2
> > The system call OH seems to be bigger for nanosleep than
> > for select and on my ppc is is about 112 us. Can anything
> > be done about that?
>
> Hmm, the only reason I can see is that select calls finally
> schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock() which optimizes the expiry = 0 case
> while nanosleep does not. So the difference is only visiable when the
> relative timeout is 0. For timeouts > 0 nanosleep and select should
> behave the same way.

Yes, that is it. Thanks

However nanosleep with 1 ns and prctl(PR_SET_TIMERSLACK, 1) takes
about 8 us on x86(Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz)
and 20 us on my slower ppc board. Is that system call overhead
or possibly some error?

Jocke

--
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: 2010-09-08 14:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans