Re: [PATCH] hrtimers, timers: eliminate some jiffies-backed code

[Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@linaro.org>]

On 01/25/2012 04:01 AM, john stultz wrote:

> Why do you want to move loops like the above from jiffies based timeouts
> to hrtimers?

I'm trying to see whether there are possible benefits in the sense of power management.
More hrtimers with larger expire deltas -> more opportunities to coalesce hrtimer
interrupts -> less frequency of hrtimer interrupts -> longer idle/suspend/stanby/etc.
periods.

> Is there an actual need for sub-jiffy granularity in these sorts of
> timeouts?

I didn't collect a representative statistics among the large set of different drivers,
but I believe the answer is 'no' for the most of them. The main reason is described above.

> Or is this really just a "getting away from using jiffies" cleanup?

A bit of this too, definitely. Documentation/timers/highres.txt notices 'complete jiffies
removal' as something which may take place sometime; at least, I don't have an ideas why
to use jiffies in a new code.

> Calling get_time() again on each hrtimer_wakeup isn't free.
>
> With this we end up when the irq fires, calling hrtimer_interrupt, which
> reads the time and goes through the timer list running expired timers,
> which then runs the sleeper's timer which then reads the time again!
> Additinoally, this extra overhead is done even no one wants the elapsed
> time.

Thanks, I'll think about reworking of this.

Dmitry