[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E7CDE1F.90004@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:29:35 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce greedy hrtimer walk on idle
On 9/23/2011 11:54 AM, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> Current hrtimer range timers reduces the number of timer interrupts by
> grouping together softexpired timers until the next unexpired timer.
> It does not look at softexpired timers that may be after the unexpired
> timer in the rbtree.
>
> Specifically, as the comment in hrtimer.c says
> * The immediate goal for using the softexpires is
> * minimizing wakeups, not running timers at the
> * earliest interrupt after their soft expiration.
> * This allows us to avoid using a Priority Search
> * Tree, which can answer a stabbing querry for
> * overlapping intervals and instead use the simple
> * BST we already have.
> * We don't add extra wakeups by delaying timers that
> * are right-of a not yet expired timer, because that
> * timer will have to trigger a wakeup anyway.
>
Since you found that it now makes a difference, I'm all for it..
Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
(at original introduction it was in the noise, but usage patterns
clearly changed a lot and ranges are much more prevalent now)
I would not do the sysctl/configurability thing though.... that's not
worth it.
--
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