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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site