Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Jul 2,  3:31pm, joerg%bec.de@localhost (Joerg Sonnenberger) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice

| > 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.

But it is a good start; there are workloads that will immediately benefit
from it, and it can be conditional until the performance issues are addressed.
The alternative is to bump HZ high enough and that can have worse performance.

christos