Peter Williams wrote:
When we go to a tickless kernel and offer high-resolution timers to
userspace, then it will be irrelevant. Until then, or if the kernel
goes tickless but limits the resolution of timers for efficiency, the
value of HZ is still relevant.
The resolution will always be limited. That's the nature of digital systems. Unlimited resolution would require real "real" numbers and that's not possible. The nearest you get on a digital system is the floating point APPROXIMATION to real numbers.
Sure, but HZ will still be irrelevant. There won't be a HZ to report.
IMHO, as I've said several times, USER_HZ should be changed to be equal to or greater than HZ. In fact, if having USER_HZ greater than HZ would still make it unusable for your purposes, I'd change that opinion to say USER_HZ should be equal to HZ (or, in other words, cease to exist).
It's not possible to change USER_HZ. There are too many programs with
the number hard-coded into the binary.
The best we could do is make
the HZ userspace macro non-constant, so it calls sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK),
and wait a few years until practically all programs being used no
longer contain a hard-coded constant. Then we could get rid of USER_HZ again.