[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:0.017 / U:39.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site