Hi,

On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 09:44:05AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
quoted text
> From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
> 
> After discussing w/ Thomas over IRC, it seems the issue is the sched
> tick fires on every cpu at the same time, causing extra lock contention.

Hmm, the cpu-specific offset calculation isn't too expensive, hopefully?
(div/mul in patch, maybe this could be done differently)

And is it granted that the do_div() compiles into a nice plain void
on non-SMP? Would be good to verify this.

And calculation order? Do multiply before division to minimize calculation
error?
(for a timer tick it probably doesn't matter, however)
And of course OTOH doing it the other way might lead to overflows...

quoted text
> This smaller change, adds an extra offset per cpu so the ticks don't
> line up. This patch also drops the idle latency from 40us down to under
> 20us.

Very nice, thanks!

quoted text
> +	/* Get the next period (per cpu)*/
>  	ts->sched_timer.expires = tick_init_jiffy_update();
> +	offset = ktime_to_ns(tick_period) >> 1;
> +	do_div(offset, NR_CPUS);
> +	offset *= smp_processor_id();

Andreas Mohr
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/