Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:05:53 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/2] NOHZ vs. profile/oprofile v2 |
| |
* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:41:10 +0200 > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > Hm, this is rather ugly. Why not use hrtimers like 'perf' does when > > it fallback-samples based on the timer tick? > > > > That method has three advantages: > > > > - no weird hookery needed > > - resolution can go far beyond HZ > > - it is evidently dynticks-safe > > Hmm, if we replace the HZ based oprofile tick with an hrtimer we > should add an interface to configure the sample interval as well, > no? Otherwise we just replace one timer event (HZ) with another > (hrtimer).
Even if the hrtimer is set with a 1/HZ period it's a better solution, as it's dynticks safe without invasive changes.
Ingo
| |