[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: HZ, preferably as small as possible
"Grover, Andrew" wrote:
> I'd like to see HZ closer to 100 than 1000, for CPU power reasons. Processor
> power states like C3 may take 100 microseconds+ to enter/leave - time when
> both the CPU isn't doing any work, but still drawing power as if it was. We
> pop out of C3 whenever there is an interrupt, so reducing timer interrupts
> is good from a power standpoint by amortizing the transition penalty over a
> longer period of power savings.

That makes a ton of sense.

> But on the other hand, increasing HZ has perf/latency benefits, yes? Have
> these been quantified?

Not that I'm aware of. And I'd regard any such claims with some

> I'd either like to see a HZ that has balanced
> power/performance, or could we perhaps detect we are on a system that cares
> about power (aka a laptop) and tweak its value at runtime?

It's all rather fishy.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.137 / U:8.968 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site