Re: [RFC PATCH] Turn off the tick even when not idle

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:01:26PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > When a process does some number crunching for a while, without involving
> > the kernel, the kernel still interrupts it HZ times per second to figure
> > out if it has any work to do.  With a system dedicated to doing such
> > number crunching, the answer will almost always come up "no"; however,
> > the kernel takes a while figuring out all the "no"s from various
> > subsystems, every timer tick.  On my system, the timer tick takes about
> > 80us, every 1/HZ seconds; that represents a significant overhead.  80us
> > out of every 1ms, for instance, means 8% overhead.  Furthermore, the
> > time taken varies, and the timer interrupts lead to jitter in the
> > performance of the number crunching.
> 
> 8% overhead on hz=1000 is quite high --- what hw is that?

32-bit x86, ThinkPad T60p (work laptop).  I've observed similar
latencies on x86-64, and others have observed them on 64-bit powerpc.

On top of that, almost all of that 80us consists of variations on "Do I
have any work to do?  No?  OK then.".

> You should be able to get similar results with HZ=1, right?

Possibly, yes.  But I want good responsiveness when the system *does*
have work to do.

- Josh Triplett