Re: [PATCH] i386 No-Idle-Hz aka Dynamic-Ticks 3
From: Daniel Petrini (d.pensator_at_gmail.com)
Date: 08/09/05
- Previous message: Steven Rostedt: "Re: Signal handling possibly wrong"
- In reply to: George Anzinger: "Re: [PATCH] i386 No-Idle-Hz aka Dynamic-Ticks 3"
- Next in thread: Tony Lindgren: "Re: [PATCH] i386 No-Idle-Hz aka Dynamic-Ticks 3"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 16:22:16 -0400 To: george@mvista.com
> I convinced my self that the next_timer... code in timer.c misses timers
> (i.e. gives the wrong answer). I did this (after wondering due to
> performance) by scanning the whole timer list after I had the
> next_timer... answer and finding a better answer, not always, but some
> times. That code does not address the cascade list correctly.
The timertop kernel patch accounts for all the scheduled timers. Try
to take a look at its output at /proc/top_info. Maybe it can help to
detect it.
Daniel Petrini
-- 10LE - Linux INdT - Manaus - Brazil - 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/
- Previous message: Steven Rostedt: "Re: Signal handling possibly wrong"
- In reply to: George Anzinger: "Re: [PATCH] i386 No-Idle-Hz aka Dynamic-Ticks 3"
- Next in thread: Tony Lindgren: "Re: [PATCH] i386 No-Idle-Hz aka Dynamic-Ticks 3"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|