mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: "Povolotsky, Alexander" <Alexander.Povolotsky@marconi.com>,
	"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Maximum frequency of re-scheduling (minimum time quantum) que stio n
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:33:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040705162139.00b1caa8@pop.gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF08F42FD4@whq-msgusr-02.pit .comms.marconi.com>

At 10:18 AM 7/5/2004 -0400, Povolotsky, Alexander wrote:

>Mike - the part of my original question was - what is the minimum "measure"
>(in time ticks or is fraction of the time tick ?) of that "(almost) any time
>? In another words, assuming what is the latency between the moment, when
>the higher priority process (or thread ) is becoming available  to run (and
>assuming that "schedule()" system call is not explicitly called at that time
>...)and the moment when the scheduler STARTS (I am not including context
>switch time into the question here) the process of preemtion (start of the
>context switch). Is this time  settable (at compile time ) ?

Ah, you want wakeup latency numbers.  Sorry, I don't have any.  I believe 
Andrew and Davide both wrote tools for measuring in the wild, a search of 
the archives should turn up something that will give you the numbers you're 
looking for.

If I'm understanding your question, no, there is no latency guarantee.


> >If you're looking for an interface into the scheduler that allows you to
> >twiddle slice length
>
>you mean at the run time (vs compile time), I assume ?

Yes.

         -Mike 


       reply	other threads:[~2004-07-05 15:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF08F42FD4@whq-msgusr-02.pit .comms.marconi.com>
2004-07-05 15:33 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
     [not found] <320586863@toto.iv>
2004-07-13  0:20 ` Maximum frequency of re-scheduling (minimum time quantum ) " peterc
2004-07-08 13:01 Povolotsky, Alexander
2004-07-08 23:32 ` Peter Williams
2004-07-08 23:41   ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-07-09  1:46   ` Nick Piggin
2004-07-09  1:57     ` Andrew Morton
2004-07-09  4:18       ` Con Kolivas
2004-07-09  4:48         ` Andrew Morton
2004-07-09  3:04     ` Peter Williams
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-07  9:48 Maximum frequency of re-scheduling (minimum time quantum) " Povolotsky, Alexander
2004-07-07 15:52 ` Elladan
2004-07-07  7:59 Povolotsky, Alexander
2004-07-07  8:30 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2004-07-07  8:59 ` Elladan
2004-07-07 10:26   ` Con Kolivas
2004-07-05 14:18 Povolotsky, Alexander
2004-07-05 23:26 ` Peter Williams

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=5.2.1.1.2.20040705162139.00b1caa8@pop.gmx.net \
    --to=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=Alexander.Povolotsky@marconi.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®