george anzinger wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I really don't get the notion of partial ticks, and quite frankly, this
> > isn't going into my tree until some major distribution kicks me in the
> > head and explains to me why the hell we have partial ticks instead of just
> > making the ticks shorter.
> ...
>
> Making ticks shorter causes extra overhead ALL the time,
> even when it is not needed. Higher resolution is not free
> in any case, but it is much closer to free with this patch
> than by increasing HZ (which, of course, can still be
> done). Overhead wise and resolution wise, for timers, we
> would be better off with a 1/HZ tick and the "on demand"
> high-res interrupts this patch introduces.
Seems reasonable to me. Increasing HZ adds overhead -
it makes sense to incur the interrupt overhead only when it's
needed. In my case, we want to provide fairly precise
network delays (we're doing a WAN simulator), and still hit
line rate. Now, I'm way far from the code, but I suspect that
the interrupt overhead needed to get the precision the customer
is calling for would be totally prohibitive. I dunno if we'll
get the precision the customer wants with George's approach,
but we'll get a lot closer than we would setting HZ to 10000
on our wimpy little embedded platform.
George's approach would work a lot better when doing lots of UML VM's
on a single box, too, wouldn't it?
- Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:35 EST