[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45A00BED.6030802@vmware.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:51:57 -0800
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
jeremy@...source.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: + paravirt-vmi-timer-patches.patch added to -mm tree
Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 12:37 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>
>
>>> There is already a dynamic tick (NO_HZ) system in the -mm tree .. Given
>>> that this implementation seems unnecessary. Why do you need another
>>> different system to do this?
>>>
>>>
>> We don't. This was written before the dynamic tick code, and now they
>> need to be merged. Until then, they can safely coexist.
>>
>
> So really this can't go upstream till that merge happens. What's
> preventing you from just directly using NO_HZ without changes?
>
For one thing, the fact that it doesn't account for stolen time. But
mostly because going through the regular PIT / APIC timer paths has a
lot of overhead. So we need a separate timer device, and weaving this
in with the local APIC timer dependency for SMP on i386 requires changes
on top of NO_HZ.
Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists