[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: No 100 HZ timer !
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:57:04 +0200, Jamie Lokier
<> wrote:

>george anzinger wrote:
>> > A pointer-based priority queue is really not a very complex thing, and
>> > there are ways to optimise them for typical cases like the above.
>> >
>> Please do enlighten me. The big problem in my mind is that the
>> pointers, pointing at points in time, are perishable.
>Um, I'm not sure what perishability has to do with anything. Timers at
>the moment can be added, deleted and destroyed and it's no big deal.
>Look in an algorithms book under "priority queue". They usually don't
>say how to use a heap-ordered tree -- usually it's an array -- but you
>can use a tree if you want. In such a tree, each timer has a link to
>_two_ next timers and one previous timer. (The previous timer link is
>only needed if you can delete timers before they expire, which is
>required for Linux).
>I'm not saying saying a heap-ordered tree is fastest. But it's ok, and
>doesn't require any more storage than the `struct timer' objects
>It's possible to optimise this kind of data structure rather a lot,
>depending on how you want to use it. Linux' current timer algorithm is
>a pretty good example of a priority queue optimised for timer ticks,
>where you don't mind doing a small amount of work per tick.
>One notable complication with the kernel is that we don't want every
>timer to run at its exactly allocated time, except for some special
>timers. For example, if you have 100 TCP streams and their
>retransmission times are scheduled for 1.0000s, 1.0001s, 1.0002s, etc.,
>you'd much rather just process them all at once as is done at the moment
>by the 100Hz timer. This is because cache locality is much more
>important for TCP retransmits than transmit timing resolution.
>There's literature online about this class of problems: look up "event
>set" and "simulation" and "fast priority queue".

I bumped into a funny non-optimization a few years ago. A system with
a timer queue like the above had been "optimized" by keeping old timer
elements... ready for new tasks to link onto and activate. The
granularity was 1 millsecond. Over time, all timer values from 0 to
roughly 10 minutes had been used. That resulted in 60,000 permanent
storage fragments laying about... a significant fragmentation problem.
The end was a forced recycle every month or so.

john alvord
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.145 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site