[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAhV-H6vTBwi+t8cPKSo44KZKYj8ubwv2vV4FHrNH+nG=_ZXnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:46:39 +0800
From: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>, Xuerui Wang <kernel@...0n.name>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] LoongArch: Reduce min_delta for the arch clockevent device
Hi, Sebastian,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 6:21 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On 2024-11-08 17:15:43 [+0800], Huacai Chen wrote:
> > Now the min_delta is 0x600 (1536) for LoongArch's constant clockevent
> > device. For a 100MHz hardware timer this means ~15us. This is a little
> > big, especially for PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels. So reduce it to 1000
> > (we don't want too small values to affect performance).
>
> So this reduces it to 10us. Is anything lower than that bad performance
> wise?
Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of min_delta, but if I'm correct,
small min_delta may cause more timers to be triggered, because timers
are aligned by the granularity (min_delta). So I think min_delta
affects performance.
And I choose 10us just because I saw latency improvements when I
reduce 15us to 10us, but no more effect when I reduce it to even
lower.
Huacai
>
> > Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
>
> Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists