> george anzinger wrote:
>
> > The testing I have done seems to indicate a lower overhead on a lightly
> > loaded system, about the same overhead with some load, and much more
> > overhead with a heavy load. To me this seems like the wrong thing to
>
Doesn't the "tick-less" system presume that somebody, somewhere, will
be sleeping sometime during the 1/HZ interval so that the scheduler
gets control?
If everybody's doing:
for(;;)
number_crunch();
And no I/O is pending, how does the jiffy count get bumped?
I think the "tick-less" system relies upon a side-effect of
interactive use that can't be relied upon for design criteria.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be
attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del
was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 21:00:12 EST