From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Re: [Xen-users] About profiling xen Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:01:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4AC526D7.3070405@goop.org> References: <196324.1267.qm@web94604.mail.in2.yahoo.com> <4AC3E889.6060407@goop.org> <4AC516EC.3050704@goop.org> <4AC51C48.40203@goop.org> <4AC521DC.2020106@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Marco Tizzoni Cc: "Fajar A." , Fasiha Ashraf , xen , xen-users@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10/01/09 14:55, Marco Tizzoni wrote: > Sorry, I was not clear. It works as I expect, i.e going not over 1000 > hz (my dom0 kernel has been compiled with 1000hz). > OK, that's definitely *not* expected. If you're running with CONFIG_NO_HZ and HIGH_RES_TIMERS then timer resolution should have nothing to do with your HZ configuration. > Following a couple of run of your testtimer: > > hal9k-dom0 ~ # ./testtimer .000001 |head -n10 > I think expecting a timer to work at 1MHz is unreasonable. > 1000 iterations at 0.000001 sec > 0.000662 > 0.000946 > 0.000956 > 0.000960 > 0.000962 > 0.000956 > 0.000964 > 0.000963 > 0.000964 > 0.000964 > > hal9k-dom0 ~ # ./testtimer .00001 |head -n10 > 100kHz is also very demanding. How does it work with 2kHz? 10kHz? J