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
next parent 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®