From: Pavel Machek
Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 - 06:24:34 EST
> > > The performance benefit, if any, is often lost in noise during
> > > benchmarks and when there, is less than 1%. So I was wondering if you
> > > had some specific advantage in mind for this patch? Is there some
> > > arch-specific advantage? I can certainly envision disadvantages to lower Hz.
> > There are apparently some laptops which exhibit appreciable latency between
> > the start of ACPI sleep and actually consuming less power. The 1ms wakeup
> > frequency will shorten battery life on these machines significantly. (I
> > forget the exact numbers - Len will know).
> Is there any recommended lower bound setting?
> Would there be a point in recommending lower settings for desktops
> running only text consoles opposed to X desktops?
I tried defining HZ to 10 once, and there are some #if arrays in the
kernel that prevented me from doing that.
Some drivers do timeouts based on jiffies; having HZ=1 may turn 20msec
timeout into 1sec, that could hurt a lot in the error case...
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/