Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:34:03 +0300 | From | Tony Lindgren <> | Subject | Re: Dynamic tick for 2.6.14 - what's the plan? |
| |
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> [050831 11:40]: > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 10:44 +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> [050830 18:57]: > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > Same issue, it's waiting on dynticks before being reworked. > > > > > > > > Also one more minor issue; Dyntick can cause slow boots with dyntick > > > > enabled from boot because the there's not much in the timer queue > > > > until init. > > > > > > > > This probably does not show up much on x86 though because of the > > > > short hardware timers. > > > > > > You could disable it until jiffies >= 0; this covers the boot criteria and > > > still allows for moderate savings post boot (though maybe on embedded systems > > > the delay is too long?). > > > > Yeah, that's true. Or just enable it from an init script via sysfs. > > ehh > why does it cause slow boots? > if that kind of behavior changes... isn't that a sign there is a > fundamental bug still ?
Well it seems like the next_timer_interrupt is something like 400 jiffies away and RCU code waits for completion for example in the network code.
Tony - 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/
| |