[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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

> 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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.055 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site