From: Mike Kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
To: Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
blainey@ca.ibm.com, Martin J Bligh <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
nacc@us.ibm.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com, fultonm@ca.ibm.com,
paulmck@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: nanosleep resolution, jiffies vs microseconds
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:05:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041208170504.GA4192@w-mikek2.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1102524468.16986.30.camel@farah.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:47:48AM -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> I am looking at trying to improve the latency of nanosleep for short
> sleep times (~1ms). After reading Martin Schwidefsky's post for cputime
> on s390 (Message-ID:
> <20041111171439.GA4900@mschwid3.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>), it seems to me
> that we may be able to accomplish this by storing the expire time in
> microseconds rather than jiffies.
My only question would be 'why'? Is there some environment where this
is an issue? -OR- Is this just 'something to do'? Seems to me that the
only environment where this could be an issue is for 'realtime' tasks.
For non-realtime, I would guess that the variability of preemption/scheduling
makes this almost a non-issue. In environments where I have seen heavy
use of nanosleep, there were other scheduling issues that almost always
cause one to 'sleep' longer than the specified time. I'm not opposed to
work in this area. Just curious as to why?
--
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-08 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-08 16:47 Darren Hart
2004-12-08 17:05 ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
2004-12-08 17:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-12-08 17:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-12-08 18:30 ` Darren Hart
2004-12-09 10:21 ` Jan Engelhardt
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=20041208170504.GA4192@w-mikek2.beaverton.ibm.com \
--to=kravetz@us.ibm.com \
--cc=blainey@ca.ibm.com \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=fultonm@ca.ibm.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=nacc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®