Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:01:15 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible |
| |
Grover, Andrew wrote: > So, a changing tick *can* be done. If Linux does the same thing, seems like > everyone is happy. What are the obstacles to this for Linux? If code is > based on the assumption of a constant timer tick, I humbly assert that the > code is broken.
Unfortunately code in Linux has traditionally compiled in a constant HZ all over the place, and jiffies instead of real time units are at the heart of all Linux timer-related activities.
I don't see that making 'HZ' a variable is really an option, because many drivers and scheduler-related code will be wildly inaccurate as soon as HZ actually changes values.
So that leaves us with the option of changing all the code related to waiting to be based on msecs and usecs. Which I would love to do, but that's a lot of work, both code- and audit-wise.
Jeff
- 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/
| |