lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Measured overhead of timer interrupts
    > > > what i would be interested in seeing is: the time it takes to
    > > > run a cpu bound app (eg raytracing am image) with HZ=100 and HZ=1024.
    > > > That would give a more realistic approximation of the overhead that
    > > > increasing HZ adds.
    > >
    > > Then do the bench, nobody prevents you from doing so.

    the point was more that the #s presented in this thread were not very
    relevant.


    > Should HZ=1024 be safe on x86?
    >
    > If it's not completely safe, what do I need to fix and submit patches for
    > so that we can be HZ=1024 on x86 for 2.4? :)

    i'd start by looking at eg

    http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/222-400hz.diff


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.037 / U:0.748 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site