Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:07:06 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
       josh@freedesktop.org, niv@us.ibm.com, dino@in.ibm.com,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
       vegard.nossum@gmail.com, adobriyan@gmail.com, oleg@tv-sign.ru,
       bunk@kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip-rcu] Make rcutorture more vicious: make quiescent
 rcutorture less power-hungry
Message-ID: <20080623110706.197f25b1@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <1214243649.4440.10.camel@Aeon>
References: <20080618122144.GA27143@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20080618162649.GA18326@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20080622200638.GA25328@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20080622131712.54ba732c@infradead.org>
	<1214243649.4440.10.camel@Aeon>
Organization: Intel
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 966
Lines: 23

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:54:09 +0000
Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> I'm a little concerned about how this will affect real-time
> performance, as queueing up lots of timers all at once can lead to
> long running timer expiration handlers.  If just a schedule_timeout,
> I suppose we are only looking at a process wakeup, as opposed to a
> softirq context callback function?

in reality, the time it takes to deliver the interrupt (including
waking the CPU up etc), is likely to be an order or two of magnitude
higher than this kind of code loop.... 


-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/