[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1283953868.23762.21.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:51:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: slow nanosleep?
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 15:44 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote on 2010/09/08 15:00:18:
> >
> > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 14:43 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > However nanosleep with 1 ns and prctl(PR_SET_TIMERSLACK, 1) takes
> > > > about 8 us on x86(Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz)
> > > > and 20 us on my slower ppc board. Is that system call overhead
> > > > or possibly some error?
> > >
> > > That's overhead I fear. We go way up to enqueue/arm the timer until we
> > > figure out that the timeout already happened.
> >
> > Well, there's also the fact that his ppc board is simply dead slow,
> > using the freq ratio: 3166/266 you'd expect (at a similar ins/clock
> > ratio) the ppc to take 95us.
> >
> > So in fact the pcc taking 20us is actually quite good.
>
> Actually, it takes 120 us. The 20 us was when I had Thomas
> timeout == 0 fast path patch applied(forgot to remove it).
> Without that patch it takes about 115 us. So it seems it takes
> 115-20=95 us to turn the timer wheel on my ppc.
hrtimers don't have a timer wheel, but it does poke at the hardware,
could be programming timers on that ppc is terribly slow.
--
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