Messages in this thread | | | From | "Per Jessen" <> | Date | Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:28:31 +0200 | Subject | Re: Periodic clock tick considered harmful (was: Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible) |
| |
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:44:35 -0700, dank@kegel.com wrote:
>Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:09:21PM -0600, Cort Dougan wrote: >> > Yes, please do make it a config option. 10x interrupt overhead makes me >> > worry. It lets users tailor the kernel to their expected load. >> >> All this talk is getting to me. >> >> I thought we recently (1 month ago? 2 months ago?) concluded that >> increases in interrupt frequency only affects performance by a very >> small amount, but generates an increase in responsiveness. The only >> real argument against that I have seen, is the 'power conservation' >> argument. The idea was, that the scheduler itself did not execute >> on most interrupts. The clock is updated, and that is about all. > >On UML and mainframe Linux, *any* periodic clock tick >is heavy overhead when you have a large number of >(mostly idle) instances of Linux running, isn't it?
Without knowing what UML is in this context, but assuming that mainframe means IBM s390 mainframes, I can confirm that any periodic clock tick is heavy overhead. With or without (mostly) idle instances.
/Per
regards, Per Jessen, Zurich http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.
Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."
- 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/
| |