Re: Efficient use of low-precision kernel timers

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

Alan,

On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 14:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Thomas:
> 
> Here's a question for you or anyone else who can help.
> 
> I've got a low-precision kernel timer, with a delay measured in seconds
> (and rounded off to a second boundary).  Under some circumstances the
> timer might be cancelled and restarted many times in quick succession
> (a few thousand times perhaps).  Alternatively the timer could simply
> be allowed to expire and then restarted, with the callback routine
> doing a rather small amount of work.
> 
> Which is the most efficient?  Or to put it another way, how many times 
> can I cancel and restart a low-precision timer before it uses up as 
> much CPU time as allowing the timer to expire once?

Hard to tell.

> Is there a reasonable way to answer this?  I can't think of any good 
> tests.  Or is the difference in overhead so small as to be meaningless?

The insertion / deletion needs to take the timer->base->lock, but this
is cheap as long as the insert / cancel happens on the same CPU.

The other overhead which might be "visible" is when the timer needs to
be re-cascaded in the wheel. See the table below:

         100 250 1000 HZ
[1] 256   10    4   1 ms
[2]  64 2560 1024 256 ms
[3]  64  164   66  16  s
[4]  64  175   70  17  m
[5]  64  186   75  19  h

In the 250Hz case the timer < 1024ms is never re-cascaded. A timer <66s
is re-cascaded at max. once.

So I guess your frequent cancel/restart scheme is just fine. It does not
re-trigger any kind of hardware event and the insertion/deletion is
O(1).

The network code relies on this cheap mechanism on high loaded server
machines.

Hope that helps,

	tglx