Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753545AbZIBVaU (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:30:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753516AbZIBVaT (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:30:19 -0400 Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.194]:58501 "EHLO relay2-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753515AbZIBVaT (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:30:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:30:43 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anton Blanchard , Tim Pepper , Paul McKenney , John Stultz , Christoph Lameter , Jamey Sharp Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Turn off the tick even when not idle Message-ID: <20090902213000.GA7137@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20090901154327.GA10024@feather> <20090902200125.GA1851@ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090902200125.GA1851@ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1500 Lines: 33 On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:01:26PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > When a process does some number crunching for a while, without involving > > the kernel, the kernel still interrupts it HZ times per second to figure > > out if it has any work to do. With a system dedicated to doing such > > number crunching, the answer will almost always come up "no"; however, > > the kernel takes a while figuring out all the "no"s from various > > subsystems, every timer tick. On my system, the timer tick takes about > > 80us, every 1/HZ seconds; that represents a significant overhead. 80us > > out of every 1ms, for instance, means 8% overhead. Furthermore, the > > time taken varies, and the timer interrupts lead to jitter in the > > performance of the number crunching. > > 8% overhead on hz=1000 is quite high --- what hw is that? 32-bit x86, ThinkPad T60p (work laptop). I've observed similar latencies on x86-64, and others have observed them on 64-bit powerpc. On top of that, almost all of that 80us consists of variations on "Do I have any work to do? No? OK then.". > You should be able to get similar results with HZ=1, right? Possibly, yes. But I want good responsiveness when the system *does* have work to do. - Josh Triplett -- 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/