[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070312110417.GA12308@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:04:17 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de, drepper@...hat.com,
oleg@...sign.ru, sebastien.dugue@...l.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] change futex_wait() to hrtimers
* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:00:20PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 12:27 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> > > >
> > > > the only correct approach is the use of hrtimers, and a patch exists for
> > > > that - see below. This has been included in -rt for quite some time.
> > >
> > > But isn't that bad for power management? You'll likely get more
> > > idle wakeups, won't you?
> >
> > Why so ? It comes more precise, but only once.
>
> When it's clustered around the jiffies interval then wakeups from
> multiple processes will be somewhat batched. With a precise wakeup
> you'll get wakeups all over the jiffies period, won't you?
if HIGH_RES_TIMERS is disabled then that is what happens. But frankly,
most futex waits are without timeouts - if an application cares about
micro-effects like that then you are much better off not using a
per-futex timeout anyway.
Ingo
-
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