Re: dynamic-hz

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >The overhead is a single l1 cacheline in the paths manipulating HZ
> >(rather than having an immediate value hardcoded in the asm, it reads it
> >from a memory location not in the icache). Plus there are some
> >conversion routines in the USER_HZ usages. It's not a measurable
> >difference.
> 
> Just being devils advocate here...
> 
> I had variable Hz in my tree for a while and found there was one 
> solitary purpose to setting Hz to 100; to silence cheap capacitors.
> 
> The rest of my users that were setting Hz to 100 for so-called 
> performance gains were doing so under the false impression that cpu 
> usage was lower simply because of the woefully inaccurate cpu usage 
> calcuation at 100Hz.
> 
> The performance benefit, if any, is often lost in noise during 
> benchmarks and when there, is less than 1%. So I was wondering if you 
> had some specific advantage in mind for this patch? Is there some 
> arch-specific advantage? I can certainly envision disadvantages to lower Hz.

Actually, I measured about 1W power savings with HZ=100. That's about
as much as spindown of disk saves...
								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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/