[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pYtiUPT4JKg3qxvY=qpRM=oNL8ezXeB3NHFQ2dpZikZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:18:04 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, rt@...utronix.de,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 4 15/22] timer: Remove slack leftovers
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Well, this really depends on the TIMEOUT value you have. The code now does
> implicit batching for larger timeouts by queueing the timers into wheels with
> coarse grained granularity. As long as your new TIMEOUT value ends up in the
> same bucket then that's equivalent to the slack thing.
>
> Can you give me a ballpark of your TIMEOUT value?
Generally either 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or 25 seconds.
Are these okay? Is the 25 case substantially different from the 5 case?
> When you take the slow (queueing) path, it's still expensive, not as bad as
> the previous one, but not really cheap either.
Hmm, okay.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists