Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?

From: bert hubert (ahu@ds9a.nl)
Date: Tue Apr 16 2002 - 16:34:57 EST

Next message: rwhron@earthlink.net: "Re: 2.5.8 final - another data point"
Previous message: Christian Bornträger : "Re: smbfs 2.4.19pre6"
In reply to: Olaf Fraczyk: "Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?"
Next in thread: Andreas Dilger: "Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?"
Reply: Andreas Dilger: "Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 08:12:22AM +0000, Olaf Fraczyk wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to know why exactly this value was choosen.
> Is it safe to change it to eg. 1024? Will it break anything?
> What else should I change to get it working:
> CLOCKS_PER_SEC?
> Please CC me.

Your uptime wraps to zero after 49 days. I think 'top' gets confused.

Regards,

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com          Versatile DNS Software & Services
http://www.tk                              the dot in .tk
http://lartc.org           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO
-
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/

Next message: rwhron@earthlink.net: "Re: 2.5.8 final - another data point"
Previous message: Christian Bornträger : "Re: smbfs 2.4.19pre6"
In reply to: Olaf Fraczyk: "Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?"
Next in thread: Andreas Dilger: "Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?"
Reply: Andreas Dilger: "Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 22:00:16 EST