Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

[Lee Revell]

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 21:07 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
> --Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote (on Monday, July 11, 2005 20:30:59 -0400):
> 
> > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 14:39 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> >> Lee Revell wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Tickless + sub HZ timers is a win for everyone, the multimedia people
> >> > get better latency, and the laptop people get to run longer.
> >> 
> >> IIRC it's not a win for many systems.  Throughput goes down due to timer 
> >> manipulation overhead.
> > 
> > Makes sense.  Anyway, this whole thread has been pretty hand wavey, I
> > propose that until we see some numbers from the HZ=250 advocates, we
> > leave the default alone.
> 
> Odd. Since I showed you some numbers already ... and nobody from the latency
> side of the argument has come up with any?

Sorry, I have not seen any.  Got a link?

Lee

-
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/