linux-kernel - Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:34:30 +0200
From:	Tim Blechmann <tim@...ngt.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject:  Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?

On 09/20/2009 01:12 AM, Ben Nizette wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 18:50 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> 
>> Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
>> (given it's effectively free) in situations like:
> 
> Sure HZ=1000 gives you more accurate sleeps, that's kind of the point,
> but since when has it been "effectively free"?
> http://lwn.net/Articles/331607/

i'd be curious, what effect does it have on userspace applications?
like, does it effect the wakeup latency of userspace (pthread)
mutexes/conditions or posix semaphores?

thnx, tim

-- 
tim@...ngt.org
http://tim.klingt.org

Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can
leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.
  William S. Burroughs


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)