Re: patch for apm_bios.c (kernel 2.0.30)

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:24:03 +0100 (BST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Kevin Buhr: "Re: 2.1.43 curious pipe-entries in / (root)"
Previous message: Robert Collier: "2.1.43 oops, possibly SMP, possibly TCP."
In reply to: Keith Rohrer: "Re: patch for apm_bios.c (kernel 2.0.30)"
Next in thread: Harald Koenig: "Re: patch for apm_bios.c (kernel 2.0.30)"

> Related question: If I build a kernel for x86 but change HZ to, say, 200
> or 500 or 1000, will I (a) get more frequent scheduling, (b) almost get
> more frequent scheduling except for bugs hard-coding an HZ==100 assumption,
> (c) get a total mess, or (d) get a total mess and get flamed to RTFS?

(b) I think. Actually it seems ok in 2.0.x, 1.2.x did have a few hardcoded.

I've been running HZ=1000 on some boxes running a traffic shaper where
I need the interrupt resolution

Next message: Kevin Buhr: "Re: 2.1.43 curious pipe-entries in / (root)"
Previous message: Robert Collier: "2.1.43 oops, possibly SMP, possibly TCP."
In reply to: Keith Rohrer: "Re: patch for apm_bios.c (kernel 2.0.30)"
Next in thread: Harald Koenig: "Re: patch for apm_bios.c (kernel 2.0.30)"