lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: slow nanosleep?
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote on 2010/09/08 15:52:23:
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, it takes 120 us. The 20 us was when I had Thomas
> > > timeout == 0 fast path patch applied(forgot to remove it).
> > > Without that patch it takes about 115 us. So it seems it takes
> > > 115-20=95 us to turn the timer wheel on my ppc.
> >
> > You might fire up the tracer to look where it spends that time.
>
> This helps for short(1 ns) nanosleeps, sleeps for 25 us. No idea
> if this is any good, just tossing it out for you to tear apart :)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/hrtimer.c b/kernel/hrtimer.c
> index 5c69e99..e612016 100644
> --- a/kernel/hrtimer.c
> +++ b/kernel/hrtimer.c
> @@ -1545,6 +1545,9 @@ long __sched hrtimer_nanosleep_restart(struct restart_block *restart)
> HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> hrtimer_set_expires_tv64(&t.timer, restart->nanosleep.expires);
>
> + if (!hrtimer_active(&t.timer))
> + goto out;

That actually will return for any expiry time. The timer is armed in
do_nanosleep() not in hrtimer_set_expires_tv64() /
hrtimer_set_expires_range_ns()

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-08 16:33    [W:0.063 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site