Alan, On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 14:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > Thomas: > > Here's a question for you or anyone else who can help. > > I've got a low-precision kernel timer, with a delay measured in seconds > (and rounded off to a second boundary). Under some circumstances the > timer might be cancelled and restarted many times in quick succession > (a few thousand times perhaps). Alternatively the timer could simply > be allowed to expire and then restarted, with the callback routine > doing a rather small amount of work. > > Which is the most efficient? Or to put it another way, how many times > can I cancel and restart a low-precision timer before it uses up as > much CPU time as allowing the timer to expire once?
Hard to tell. > Is there a reasonable way to answer this? I can't think of any good > tests. Or is the difference in overhead so small as to be meaningless? The insertion / deletion needs to take the timer->base->lock, but this is cheap as long as the insert / cancel happens on the same CPU. The other overhead which might be "visible" is when the timer needs to be re-cascaded in the wheel. See the table below: 100 250 1000 HZ [1] 256 10 4 1 ms [2] 64 2560 1024 256 ms [3] 64 164 66 16 s [4] 64 175 70 17 m [5] 64 186 75 19 h In the 250Hz case the timer < 1024ms is never re-cascaded. A timer <66s is re-cascaded at max. once. So I guess your frequent cancel/restart scheme is just fine. It does not re-trigger any kind of hardware event and the insertion/deletion is O(1). The network code relies on this cheap mechanism on high loaded server machines. Hope that helps, tglx - 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/