linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Reduce the default HZ value

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]

Message-Id: <1241716422.6311.1524.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 07 May 2009 19:13:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Reduce the default HZ value

On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 19:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 10:13 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > I think we need to reduce the general tick frequency to be as low as
> > possible. With high resolution timers the tick frequency is just the
> > frequency with which the timer interrupt disturbs a running application.
> > 
> > Are there any benefits remaining from frequent timer interrupts? I would
> > think that 60 HZ would be sufficient.
> > 
> > It would be good if the kernel would be truly tickless. Scheduler events
> > would be driven by the scheduling intervals and not the invokations of the
> > scheduler softirq.
> 
> The only thing that's driven by the softirq is load-balancing, there's
> way more to the scheduler-tick than kicking that thing awake every so
> often.
> 
> The problem is that running the scheduler of off hrtimers is too
> expensive. We have the code, we tried it, people complained.

Therefore, decreasing the HZ value to say 50, we'd get a minimum
involuntary preemption granularity of 20ms, something on the high end of
barely usable.


--
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/