Why was the rate incremented to maintain interactive performance? Wasn't
that the whole idea of the pre-empt work? Does the burden of pre-empt
actually require this?
It seems that the added inefficiency of these extra interrupts is going to
drag performance down.
} George Anzinger's 64-bit jiffies are in 2.5.
}
} Tim's code to better utilize them is in 2.5 I _think_.
}
} > Didn't Red Hat change HZ to 1000 (or 1024) in Limbo as well? How did they
} > handle that?
}
} Yes, RedHat's current devel kernel is using HZ=1000. I am not sure how
} they handled it. What we have in 2.5 now is correct.
}
} Robert Love
}
} -
} 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/
-
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 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST