[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090902200125.GA1851@ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:01:26 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jamey Sharp <jamey@...ilop.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Turn off the tick even when not idle
Hi!
> When a process does some number crunching for a while, without involving
> the kernel, the kernel still interrupts it HZ times per second to figure
> out if it has any work to do. With a system dedicated to doing such
> number crunching, the answer will almost always come up "no"; however,
> the kernel takes a while figuring out all the "no"s from various
> subsystems, every timer tick. On my system, the timer tick takes about
> 80us, every 1/HZ seconds; that represents a significant overhead. 80us
> out of every 1ms, for instance, means 8% overhead. Furthermore, the
> time taken varies, and the timer interrupts lead to jitter in the
> performance of the number crunching.
8% overhead on hz=1000 is quite high --- what hw is that?
You should be able to get similar results with HZ=1, right?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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