Re: High scheduler wake up times

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:35:49 -0600
Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
\
> 
> I agree that we are currently depending on a bug in epoll.  The epoll
> implementation currently rounds up to the next jiffie, so specifying a
> timeout of 1 ms really just wakes the process up at the next timer
> tick. I have a patch to fix epoll by converting it to use
> schedule_hrtimeout_range() that I'll gladly send, but I still need a
> way to achieve the same thing.

it's not going to help you; your expectation is incorrect.
you CANNOT get 1000 iterations per second if you do

<wait 1 msec>
<do a bunch of work>
<wait 1 msec>
etc in a loop

the more accurate (read: not rounding down) the implementation, the
more not-1000 you will get, because to hit 1000 the two actions

<wait 1 msec>
<do a bunch of work>

combined are not allowed to take more than 1000 microseconds wallcock
time. Assuming "do a bunch of work" takes 100 microseconds, for you to
hit 1000 there would need to be 900 microseconds in a milliseconds...
and sadly physics don't work that way.

(and that's even ignoring various OS, CPU wakeup and scheduler
contention overheads)



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/