Re: Periodic clock tick considered harmful (was: Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible)

[mbs <mbs@mc.com>]

george, 

	with the HRT is there any reason to have 10 timer interrupts per process 
quantum anymore? (10 ms ticks, 100 ms proc quantum)



On Thursday 11 July 2002 15:06, george anzinger wrote:
> Ah, but you haven't looked at all that happens on a 1/HZ
> tick.  The high-res-timers patch does NOT eliminate the 1/HZ
> tick.  That tick is used to do a LOT of accounting activity
> which IMHO is best done by a periodic tick.  In particular,
> the time slice and execution time management depend on the
> periodic tick.  As a test we put together a tickless system,
> much as suggested above, and put enough stuff in it to see
> what the overhead was and how it changed.  The conclusion
> was that the timer over head increased far beyond the
> current overhead as soon as the system load (actually the
> number of context switches per second) increased beyond what
> a moderately busy system experiences.  In other words, the
> system was overload prone.  The current accounting activity
> is flat WRT to context switching which is IMHO just what it
> should be.  For those who want to know, a patch to put that
> test system together is still on the HRT sourceforge site.
>
> -g
>
> > OK, so I'm just an ignorant member of the peanut gallery, but
> > I'd like to hear a real kernel hacker explain why this isn't
> > the way to go.
> >
> > - Dan

-- 
/**************************************************
**   Mark Salisbury       ||      mbs@mc.com     **
** If you would like to sponsor me for the       **
** Mass Getaway, a 150 mile bicycle ride to for  **
** MS, contact me to donate by cash or check or  **
** click the link below to donate by credit card **
**************************************************/
https://www.nationalmssociety.org/pledge/pledge.asp?participantid=86736