Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?

[Daniel J Blueman]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:47:24 +0100
> Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On tickless kernels, is the general consensus that for non-embedded
>> systems, selecting HZ=1000 gives slightly more throughput in
>> particular situations than HZ=100 or 250, due to finer timer
>> intervals/granularity?
>
> it's not about throughput. It's about latency for some things....
> although now that select/poll and co use hrtimers it's not as critical
> anymore.
>
> the HZ timers aren't used much for anything time-critical nowadays.

Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
(given it's effectively free) in situations like:

jiffies_to_transmit = port->baud?(1 + charsleft * 10 * HZ / port->baud):0;

<applying plausible figures>
(gdb) p (1 + 10 * 10 * 1000 / 38400) * 1
$3 = 3
(gdb) p (1 + 10 * 10 * 250 / 38400) * 4
$5 = 4

-> HZ=250 causes a 33% longer sleep than expected

perhaps?
-- 
Daniel J Blueman
--
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/