Re: #define HZ 1024 -- negative effects?

From: Mike Galbraith (
Date: Wed Apr 25 2001 - 22:51:39 EST

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Dan Maas wrote:

> The only other possibility I can think of is a scheduler anomaly. A thread
> arose on this list recently about strange scheduling behavior of processes
> using local IPC - even though one process had readable data pending, the
> kernel would still go idle until the next timer interrupt. If this is the
> case, then HZ=1024 would kick the system back into action more quickly...

Hmm. I've caught tasks looping here (experimental tree but..) with
interrupts enabled, but schedule never being called despite having
many runnable tasks.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:15 EST