Subject: Re: HZ > 100 overhead
From: Billy Biggs (vektor_AT_DIV8.NET)
Date: ke loka 27 1999 - 14:55:29 EDT
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 est_AT_hyperreal.org wrote:
> Paul Barton-Davis discourseth:
> > >
> > >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.
Just to add to the confusion, I remember that this only adds significant
overhead on older machines. Regardless, a higher HZ value should be
standard, and switching back to a lower one (100) should be simply a
kernel config option.
This is all pretty controversial though.
#demoscene on irc.openprojects.net for people who support this idea. :)
#linux on linuxnet for some people who don't support this idea. :)
-- Billy Biggs vektor_AT_div8.net http://www.div8.net/billy wbiggs_AT_uwaterloo.ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:27:59 EST