* tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?
@ 2009-09-19 14:47 Daniel J Blueman
2009-09-19 14:55 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel J Blueman @ 2009-09-19 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel
On tickless kernels, is the general consensus that for non-embedded
systems, selecting HZ=1000 gives slightly more throughput in
particular situations than HZ=100 or 250, due to finer timer
intervals/granularity?
(low HZ used to cause problems with low-rate QoS packet queues when
timer scheduling was selected)
Thanks,
Daniel
--
Daniel J Blueman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?
2009-09-19 14:47 tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage? Daniel J Blueman
@ 2009-09-19 14:55 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-19 17:50 ` Daniel J Blueman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2009-09-19 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel J Blueman; +Cc: Linux Kernel
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:47:24 +0100
Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On tickless kernels, is the general consensus that for non-embedded
> systems, selecting HZ=1000 gives slightly more throughput in
> particular situations than HZ=100 or 250, due to finer timer
> intervals/granularity?
it's not about throughput. It's about latency for some things....
although now that select/poll and co use hrtimers it's not as critical
anymore.
the HZ timers aren't used much for anything time-critical nowadays.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?
2009-09-19 14:55 ` Arjan van de Ven
@ 2009-09-19 17:50 ` Daniel J Blueman
2009-09-19 23:12 ` Ben Nizette
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel J Blueman @ 2009-09-19 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: Linux Kernel
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:47:24 +0100
> Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On tickless kernels, is the general consensus that for non-embedded
>> systems, selecting HZ=1000 gives slightly more throughput in
>> particular situations than HZ=100 or 250, due to finer timer
>> intervals/granularity?
>
> it's not about throughput. It's about latency for some things....
> although now that select/poll and co use hrtimers it's not as critical
> anymore.
>
> the HZ timers aren't used much for anything time-critical nowadays.
Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
(given it's effectively free) in situations like:
jiffies_to_transmit = port->baud?(1 + charsleft * 10 * HZ / port->baud):0;
<applying plausible figures>
(gdb) p (1 + 10 * 10 * 1000 / 38400) * 1
$3 = 3
(gdb) p (1 + 10 * 10 * 250 / 38400) * 4
$5 = 4
-> HZ=250 causes a 33% longer sleep than expected
perhaps?
--
Daniel J Blueman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?
2009-09-19 17:50 ` Daniel J Blueman
@ 2009-09-19 23:12 ` Ben Nizette
2009-09-20 7:34 ` Tim Blechmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Nizette @ 2009-09-19 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel J Blueman; +Cc: Arjan van de Ven, Linux Kernel
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 18:50 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
> (given it's effectively free) in situations like:
Sure HZ=1000 gives you more accurate sleeps, that's kind of the point,
but since when has it been "effectively free"?
http://lwn.net/Articles/331607/
--Ben.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?
2009-09-19 23:12 ` Ben Nizette
@ 2009-09-20 7:34 ` Tim Blechmann
2009-09-20 7:40 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tim Blechmann @ 2009-09-20 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Daniel J Blueman, Arjan van de Ven, Linux Kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]
On 09/20/2009 01:12 AM, Ben Nizette wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 18:50 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
>> (given it's effectively free) in situations like:
>
> Sure HZ=1000 gives you more accurate sleeps, that's kind of the point,
> but since when has it been "effectively free"?
> http://lwn.net/Articles/331607/
i'd be curious, what effect does it have on userspace applications?
like, does it effect the wakeup latency of userspace (pthread)
mutexes/conditions or posix semaphores?
thnx, tim
--
tim@klingt.org
http://tim.klingt.org
Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can
leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.
William S. Burroughs
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?
2009-09-20 7:34 ` Tim Blechmann
@ 2009-09-20 7:40 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2009-09-20 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tim Blechmann; +Cc: linux-kernel, Daniel J Blueman
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:34:30 +0200
Tim Blechmann <tim@klingt.org> wrote:
> On 09/20/2009 01:12 AM, Ben Nizette wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 18:50 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to
> >> HZ=1000 (given it's effectively free) in situations like:
> >
> > Sure HZ=1000 gives you more accurate sleeps, that's kind of the
> > point, but since when has it been "effectively free"?
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/331607/
>
> i'd be curious, what effect does it have on userspace applications?
> like, does it effect the wakeup latency of userspace (pthread)
> mutexes/conditions or posix semaphores?
the impact to userspace should be zero nowadays since select/poll/etc
moved to hrtimers, which are HZ-independent.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-20 7:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-09-19 14:47 tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage? Daniel J Blueman
2009-09-19 14:55 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-19 17:50 ` Daniel J Blueman
2009-09-19 23:12 ` Ben Nizette
2009-09-20 7:34 ` Tim Blechmann
2009-09-20 7:40 ` Arjan van de Ven
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox