Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:50:13 +0100 | Subject | Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage? | From | Daniel J Blueman <> |
| |
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:47:24 +0100 > Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On tickless kernels, is the general consensus that for non-embedded >> systems, selecting HZ=1000 gives slightly more throughput in >> particular situations than HZ=100 or 250, due to finer timer >> intervals/granularity? > > it's not about throughput. It's about latency for some things.... > although now that select/poll and co use hrtimers it's not as critical > anymore. > > the HZ timers aren't used much for anything time-critical nowadays.
Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000 (given it's effectively free) in situations like:
jiffies_to_transmit = port->baud?(1 + charsleft * 10 * HZ / port->baud):0;
<applying plausible figures> (gdb) p (1 + 10 * 10 * 1000 / 38400) * 1 $3 = 3 (gdb) p (1 + 10 * 10 * 250 / 38400) * 4 $5 = 4
-> HZ=250 causes a 33% longer sleep than expected
perhaps? -- Daniel J Blueman
| |