Re: Increasing HZ (patch for HZ > 1000)

[Mitchell Blank Jr]

john stultz wrote:
> Indeed, with all the trouble HZ==1000 has caused, I'm thinking that
> playing w/ HZ at 10k and 10 would be good stress tests for the time
> subsystem.

I think setting HZ much lower than 100 might break some drivers that
do things like:
		timeout = jiffies + (HZ / 50);

Not sure if any of the common drivers have this problem but be on the
lookout for it if you want to try running w/ really low HZ.

I suppose there should really be a "FRACTION_OF_SECOND()" macro or something
that always returns >0 for specifying these really short delays.

-Mitch
-
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/