[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100130164716.230dfe31@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:47:16 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: High scheduler wake up times
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:35:49 -0600
Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com> wrote:
\
>
> I agree that we are currently depending on a bug in epoll. The epoll
> implementation currently rounds up to the next jiffie, so specifying a
> timeout of 1 ms really just wakes the process up at the next timer
> tick. I have a patch to fix epoll by converting it to use
> schedule_hrtimeout_range() that I'll gladly send, but I still need a
> way to achieve the same thing.
it's not going to help you; your expectation is incorrect.
you CANNOT get 1000 iterations per second if you do
<wait 1 msec>
<do a bunch of work>
<wait 1 msec>
etc in a loop
the more accurate (read: not rounding down) the implementation, the
more not-1000 you will get, because to hit 1000 the two actions
<wait 1 msec>
<do a bunch of work>
combined are not allowed to take more than 1000 microseconds wallcock
time. Assuming "do a bunch of work" takes 100 microseconds, for you to
hit 1000 there would need to be 900 microseconds in a milliseconds...
and sadly physics don't work that way.
(and that's even ignoring various OS, CPU wakeup and scheduler
contention overheads)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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