From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752545AbXCEA3Y (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:29:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752572AbXCEA3Y (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:29:24 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:57746 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752545AbXCEA3X (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:29:23 -0500 Message-Id: <20070305002024.875968120@arndb.de> User-Agent: quilt/0.45-1 Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:20:24 +0100 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Thomas Gleixner Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/3] RFC: using hrtimers for in-kernel timeouts X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:c48f057754fc1b1a557605ab9fa6da41 X-Provags-ID2: V01U2FsdGVkX1/6WgW73gD7dtUenPb4HO0gZ2KPfsoqZf2CQrB qkAihNZU2Cp3K2o538IITdX/mFJWiOfrciK88G2h2Kc100KouB bBDc87ibKBzr8Fj8P3yNg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I've played around with the new timer statistics to see which timers might benefit of being moved from traditional timers to hrtimers. Since my understanding is that timer_list timers are not really meant to expire, this seems to include a lot of what comes in through schedule_timeout, in particular select() and futex wait. I have no idea if what I was attempting is even the right approach to start with, but I want to share the patches in case it is ;-). Maybe someone is interested in running some low-level benchmarks on this or point out any bugs in the code. Arnd <>< --