From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: "Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@ti.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Higer latency with dynamic tick (need for an io-ondemand govenor?)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:45:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200804182045.56893.david-b@pacbell.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3B6D69C3A9EBCA4BA5DA60D91302742904131BED@dlee13.ent.ti.com>
On Friday 18 April 2008, Woodruff, Richard wrote:
> When capturing some traces with dynamic tick we were noticing the
> interrupt latency seems to go up a good amount. If you look at the trace
> the gpio IRQ is now offset a good amount. Good news I guess is its
> pretty predictable.
That is, about 24 usec on this CPU ... an ARM v7, which I'm guessing
is an OMAP34xx running fairly fast (order of 4x faster than most ARMs).
Similar issues were noted, also using ETM trace, on an ARM920 core [1]
from Atmel. There, the overhead of NO_HZ was observed to be more like
150 usec of per-IRQ overhead, which is enough to make NO_HZ non-viable
in some configurations.
> I was wondering what thoughts of optimizing this might be.
Cutting down the math implied by jiffies updates might help.
The 64 bit math for ktime structs isn't cheap; purely by eyeball,
that was almost 1/3 the cost of that 24 usec (mostly __do_div64).
- Dave
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120471594714499&w=2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-19 3:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-16 23:20 bug seen with dynticks from CONFIG_HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND Woodruff, Richard
2007-05-17 10:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-17 20:14 ` Woodruff, Richard
2007-05-17 20:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-17 22:24 ` Woodruff, Richard
2007-05-18 7:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-04-18 15:43 ` Higer latency with dynamic tick (need for an io-ondemand govenor?) Woodruff, Richard
2008-04-19 3:45 ` David Brownell [this message]
2008-04-19 7:13 ` [linux-pm] " Thomas Gleixner
2008-04-19 22:49 ` david
2008-04-20 3:51 ` David Brownell
2008-04-20 6:19 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-04-20 14:09 ` Woodruff, Richard
2008-04-20 12:41 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-20 14:21 ` Woodruff, Richard
2008-04-20 14:26 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200804182045.56893.david-b@pacbell.net \
--to=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=r-woodruff2@ti.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox