Subject: Re: HZ > 100 overhead
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: ke loka 27 1999 - 15:00:03 EDT
>> >Wouldn't you say that an HZ > 100 kernel is the cleanest solution?
>>
>> its the cleanest, but not the best. HZ = 1000 adds about 8% overhead
>> to IRQ processing *all the time*.
>
>Are you *sure* about this? I seem to remember there was some debate
>about that figure on linux-kernel.
Ed Hall measured it, and my overall impression of Ed is that I'd trust
him to do this correctly. what did the l-k folks think ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:27:59 EST