[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130730093519.GP3008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:35:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ethan Zhao <ethan.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, johlstei@...eaurora.org,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Jin Feng <joe.jin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3]hrtimer: Fix a performance regression by disable
reprogramming in remove_hrtimer
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 05:12:49PM +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > The test case does not involve anything hrtimer related. Do you have
> > CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK enabled?
> >
>
> Yes. it is default configured in stable release.
> CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK=y
Should still be disabled by default even if supported:
# grep HRTICK kernel/sched/features.h
SCHED_FEAT(HRTICK, false)
> > First of all we want to know, which particular hrtimer is causing that
> > issue. If it is the hrtick one, then I really have to ask why you want
> > to use it at all in such a high performance scenario.
> >
> > Any advice about the HZ in high performance scenario ? hrtimer tick
> Is not fit for high performance ?
Hence why its disabled, programming the timer hardware is too expensive.
But since you didn't even know that I suspect you aren't in fact using
it.
It would be good if you could do what Thomas suggested and look at which
timer is actually active during your workload.
--
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