Re: gradual timeofday overhaul
From: George Anzinger
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 16:28:28 EST
Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
From: Richard B. Johnson
You need that hardware interrupt for more than time-keeping.
Without a hardware-interrupt, to force a new time-slice,
for(;;)
;
... would allow a user to grab the CPU forever ...
But you can also schedule, before switching to the new task,
a local interrupt on the running processor to mark the end
of the timeslice. When you enter the scheduler, you just need
to remove that; devil is in the details, but it should be possible
to do in a way that doesn't take too much overhead.
Well, that is part of the accounting overhead the increases with context switch
rate. You also need to include the time it takes to figure out which of the
time limits is closes (run time limit, profile time, slice time, etc). Then,
you also need to remove the timer when switching away. No, it is not a lot, but
it is way more than the nothing we do when we can turn it all over to the
periodic tick. The choice is load sensitive overhead vs flat overhead.
--
George Anzinger george@xxxxxxxxxx
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/