lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Periodic clock tick considered harmful (was: Re: HZ, preferably as
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > First blush is HELL YES! The issue is accounting. When you
> > ask how long a program ran, you are looking at the
> > accounting that happens on a tick. This is where one of two
>
> Thats also an implementation issue. Note that the current code is also
> wildly inaccurate. Mr Shannon says we are good to at best 50 run/sleep
> changes a second. I've got "100% busy" workloads that are 99% asleep.
>
> Tracking cpu usage at task switch works a lot better for newer processors
> which as well as having rdtsc also have performance counters. In fact you
> can do much more interesting things on modern PC class platforms like
> scheduling using pre-emption interrupts based on instructions executed,
> memory accesses and more.
>
Oh, I agree. Hardware could make all this a lot easier.
--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:2.021 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site