Re: No 100 HZ timer !

From: Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de)
Date: Tue Apr 10 2001 - 09:22:02 EST

Next message: sama@aglorioso.com: "Re: [RFC] FW: proposal for systems that do not require security"
Previous message: Mikulas Patocka: "Re: No 100 HZ timer !"
In reply to: Mikulas Patocka: "Re: No 100 HZ timer !"
Next in thread: root: "Re: No 100 HZ timer !"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 04:10:28PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Timers more precise than 100HZ aren't probably needed - as MIN_RTO is 0.2s
> and MIN_DELACK is 0.04s, TCP would hardly benefit from them.

On networking bandwidth shaping and traffic control generally need higher precision timers.
There are also people who don't like the minimum 10ms delay for non-busy wait, it's
apparently a problem for some apps.

-Andi
-
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: sama@aglorioso.com: "Re: [RFC] FW: proposal for systems that do not require security"
Previous message: Mikulas Patocka: "Re: No 100 HZ timer !"
In reply to: Mikulas Patocka: "Re: No 100 HZ timer !"
Next in thread: root: "Re: No 100 HZ timer !"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 21:00:13 EST