[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0904281719480.15947@qirst.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler regression: Too frequent timer interrupts(?)
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 17:02 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say that taking interrupt and returning in below 1000nsec is
> > > impossible, even on very fast hw.
> >
> > Hmmm.... Could it be that CONFIG_NO_HZ caused the timer interrupt to be
> > avoided in earlier releases? NO_HZ theory at least is to only schedule
> > interrupts when necessary. So an interrupt is needed at the end of the
> > scheduling intervals and not at HZ frequency.
>
> No, NOHZ only works on idle cpus.
It is advertised to do more:
config NO_HZ
bool "Tickless System (Dynamic Ticks)"
depends on GENERIC_TIME && GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
select TICK_ONESHOT
help
This option enables a tickless system: timer interrupts will
only trigger on an as-needed basis both when the system is
busy and when the system is idle.
So NO_HZ is really IDLE_NO_HZ. The system is not tickless.
--
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