[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707161601570.1818@scrub.home>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:11:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] msleep() with hrtimers
Hi,
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> The OLPC folks and I recently discovered something interesting: on a
> HZ=100 system, a call to msleep(1) will delay for about 20ms. The
> combination of jiffies timekeeping and rounding up means that the
> minimum delay from msleep will be two jiffies, never less. That led to
> multi-second delays in a driver which does a bunch of short msleep()
> calls and, in response, a change to mdelay(), which will come back in
> something closer to the requested time.
>
> Here's another approach: a reimplementation of msleep() and
> msleep_interruptible() using hrtimers. On a system without real
> hrtimers this code will at least drop down to single-jiffy delays much
> of the time (though not deterministically so). On my x86_64 system with
> Thomas's hrtimer/dyntick patch applied, msleep(1) gives almost exactly
> what was asked for.
BTW there is another thing to consider. If you already run with hrtimer/
dyntick, there is not much reason to keep HZ at 100, so you could just
increase HZ to get the same effect.
bye, Roman
-
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