[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6278d2220909191050l19f2a446r5ccf1907fd963096@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:50:13 +0100
From: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:47:24 +0100
> Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On tickless kernels, is the general consensus that for non-embedded
>> systems, selecting HZ=1000 gives slightly more throughput in
>> particular situations than HZ=100 or 250, due to finer timer
>> intervals/granularity?
>
> it's not about throughput. It's about latency for some things....
> although now that select/poll and co use hrtimers it's not as critical
> anymore.
>
> the HZ timers aren't used much for anything time-critical nowadays.
Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
(given it's effectively free) in situations like:
jiffies_to_transmit = port->baud?(1 + charsleft * 10 * HZ / port->baud):0;
<applying plausible figures>
(gdb) p (1 + 10 * 10 * 1000 / 38400) * 1
$3 = 3
(gdb) p (1 + 10 * 10 * 250 / 38400) * 4
$5 = 4
-> HZ=250 causes a 33% longer sleep than expected
perhaps?
--
Daniel J Blueman
--
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