From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264942AbTLPAxh (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:53:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264948AbTLPAxh (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:53:37 -0500 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:64644 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264942AbTLPAxg (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:53:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:52:51 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: George Anzinger Cc: Nick Piggin , Guillaume Foliard , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Scheduler degradation since 2.5.66 Message-ID: <20031216005251.GB3364@mail.shareable.org> References: <200312142048.51579.guifo@wanadoo.fr> <3FDD205A.6040807@cyberone.com.au> <3FDD35F9.7090709@cyberone.com.au> <3FDE5449.60507@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FDE5449.60507@mvista.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org George Anzinger wrote: > Try running the test with a requested sleep time of something less than > 0.999849 ms. All this is for the x86 which is using this time to do the > best it can with the PIT which can only get this close to 1 ms ticks. You > can even vary this number to see exactly where the round up actually > happens. Ah, life in the nano world :) Would it be better to program the PIT for lowest frequency that's >= 1.0ms. -- Jamie