From: mbs <mbs@mc.com>
To: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] High-res-timers part 2 (x86 platform code) take 5.1
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:34:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200210101229.IAA24535@mc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3DA4CED6.1BD30A2F@kegel.com>
On Wednesday 09 October 2002 20:50, Dan Kegel wrote:
> line rate. Now, I'm way far from the code, but I suspect that
> the interrupt overhead needed to get the precision the customer
> is calling for would be totally prohibitive. I dunno if we'll
only in a fixed interval tick system. Early in george's design process I
argued for a tickless system,(which I had implemented in my company's
proprietary real-time OS) which has _no_ extra overhead and does away with
the 10ms tick entirely. the precision attained is whatever the highest
resolution interrupting counter on the system is capable of.
george did extensive benchmarking of candidate implementations of both
designs and came to the conclusion that the 10ms jiffie fixed interval tick
plus on demand higher resolution ticks was more suitable for general purpose
uses than the tickless system, particularly under high load when there are
many low resolution timed events in the system (as in a server situation).
it turned out that the tickless system was appropriate for embedded systems
(my focus) which tend to have small numbers of well coordinated tasks running
and not so good in environments with a lot of things going on, such as a
multimedia desktop or big honkin server.
whith the hybrid system that george developed, you get the batching benefits
of low resolution fixed interval timers, which provides all the capability
most timer services customers need while at the same time, and for minimal
overhead providing the high resolution timers that the embedded world needs.
--
/**************************************************
** Mark Salisbury || mbs@mc.com **
**************************************************/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-10 12:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-10 0:50 [PATCH 2/3] High-res-timers part 2 (x86 platform code) take 5.1 Dan Kegel
2002-10-10 1:33 ` Ben Greear
2002-10-10 3:55 ` Jeff Dike
2002-10-10 3:32 ` Dan Kegel
2002-10-10 12:34 ` mbs [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-19 1:02 Brad Bozarth
2002-10-12 22:03 Jim Houston
2002-10-14 6:50 ` Ulrich Windl
2002-10-15 22:03 ` george anzinger
2002-10-09 22:47 george anzinger
2002-10-09 23:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-09 23:42 ` george anzinger
2002-10-10 15:03 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-10-10 15:45 ` george anzinger
2002-10-10 15:54 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-10-10 16:24 ` george anzinger
2002-10-10 17:04 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-10-10 17:47 ` george anzinger
2002-10-13 10:46 ` Ingo Adlung
2002-10-14 7:18 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2002-10-14 22:17 ` Pavel Machek
2002-10-15 7:13 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2002-10-15 21:45 ` george anzinger
2002-10-17 21:54 ` Randy.Dunlap
2002-10-17 22:11 ` Robert Love
2002-10-18 13:11 ` mbs
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=200210101229.IAA24535@mc.com \
--to=mbs@mc.com \
--cc=dank@kegel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).