Re: slow nanosleep?

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2010/09/08 15:00:18:
>
> On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 14:43 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > However nanosleep with 1 ns and prctl(PR_SET_TIMERSLACK, 1) takes
> > > about 8 us on x86(Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500  @ 3.16GHz)
> > > and 20 us on my slower ppc board. Is that system call overhead
> > > or possibly some error?
> >
> > That's overhead I fear. We go way up to enqueue/arm the timer until we
> > figure out that the timeout already happened.
>
> Well, there's also the fact that his ppc board is simply dead slow,
> using the freq ratio: 3166/266 you'd expect (at a similar ins/clock
> ratio) the ppc to take 95us.
>
> So in fact the pcc taking 20us is actually quite good.

Actually, it takes 120 us. The 20 us was when I had Thomas
timeout == 0 fast path patch applied(forgot to remove it).
Without that patch it takes about 115 us. So it seems it takes
115-20=95 us to turn the timer wheel on my ppc.

 Jocke

--
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/