lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I must not be making my self clear :) The overhead has nothing to do
> > with hardware. It is all timer list insertion and deletion. The
> > problem is that we need to do this at context switch rates, which are
> > MUCH higher that tick rates and, even with the O(1) insertion code,
> > cause the overhead to increase above the ticked overhead.
>
> I remain unconvinced. Firstly the timer changes do not have to
> occur at schedule rate unless your implementaiton is incredibly naiive.

OK, I'll bite, how do you stop a task at the end of its slice if you
don't set up a timer event for that time?

> Secondly for the specfic schedule case done that way, it would be even more
> naiive to use the standard timer api over a single compare to getthe
> timer list versus schedule clock.

I guess it is my day to be naive :) What are you suggesting here?

--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/
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 13:25    [W:0.171 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site