Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:28:29 -0500 (EST) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable |
| |
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Kent Borg wrote:
> How does all this fit into doing a tick-less kernel? > > There is something appealing about doing stuff only when there is > stuff to do, like: respond to input, handle some device that becomes > ready, or let another process run for a while. Didn't IBM do some > nice work on this for Linux? (*Was* it nice work?) I was under the > impression that the current kernel isn't that far from being tickless. > > A tickless kernel would be wonderful for battery powered devices that > could literally shut off when there be nothing to do, and it seems it > would (trivially?) help performance on high end power hogs too. > > Why do we have regular HZ ticks? (Other than I think I remember Linus > saying that he likes them.)
Feel free to quantify the savings over the current setup with max power saving enabled in the kernel. I just don't see how "wonderful" it would be, given that an idle system currently uses very little battery if you setup the options to save power.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |