tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice

To: Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 15:31:10 +0200

On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 01:16:15PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> The solution is to implement "tickless kernel". It is not that difficult.

Yes and no. The difficult hard is introducing it without creating
noticable performance regressions. Just switching the call wheel to a RB
tree for example gave a build.sh release regression of more than 1% when
tried.

Joerg

Follow-Ups:
- Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
  - From: Christos Zoulas

References:
- nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
  - From: Emmanuel Dreyfus
- Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
  - From: Christos Zoulas

Prev by Date: Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
Next by Date: Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
Previous by Thread: Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
Next by Thread: Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index