* Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > One possible problem here is that setting up that timer can be
> > > considerably more expensive, for a relative timer you have to read
> > > the current time, which can be quite expensive (e.g. your machine
> > > now uses the PIT timer, because TSC was deemed unstable).
> >
> > i dont think there's any significant overhead. The OLPC folks are
> > pretty sensitive to performance, so if there was any genuine
> > measurable overhead due to this, i'd expect them to report it. And
> > even if there _was_ overhead, it would be well worth its price, the
> > legacies of HZ are clearly biting the OLPC project here. The sooner
> > we get rid of HZ dependencies and HZ artifacts, the better.
>
> How is a sleep function relevant to performace?
i'm not sure how your question relates/connects to what i wrote above,
could you please re-phrase your question into a bit more verbose form so
that i can answer it? Thanks,
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
