[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hrtimers, timers: eliminate some jiffies-backed code
On 01/25/2012 04:01 AM, john stultz wrote:

> Why do you want to move loops like the above from jiffies based timeouts
> to hrtimers?

I'm trying to see whether there are possible benefits in the sense of power management.
More hrtimers with larger expire deltas -> more opportunities to coalesce hrtimer
interrupts -> less frequency of hrtimer interrupts -> longer idle/suspend/stanby/etc.

> Is there an actual need for sub-jiffy granularity in these sorts of
> timeouts?

I didn't collect a representative statistics among the large set of different drivers,
but I believe the answer is 'no' for the most of them. The main reason is described above.

> Or is this really just a "getting away from using jiffies" cleanup?

A bit of this too, definitely. Documentation/timers/highres.txt notices 'complete jiffies
removal' as something which may take place sometime; at least, I don't have an ideas why
to use jiffies in a new code.

> Calling get_time() again on each hrtimer_wakeup isn't free.
> With this we end up when the irq fires, calling hrtimer_interrupt, which
> reads the time and goes through the timer list running expired timers,
> which then runs the sleeper's timer which then reads the time again!
> Additinoally, this extra overhead is done even no one wants the elapsed
> time.

Thanks, I'll think about reworking of this.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-25 10:47    [W:0.069 / U:1.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site