[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: HZ, preferably as small as possible
Martin Dalecki writes:
> U\277ytkownik Jeff Garzik napisa\263:

>> 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.

my_timeout = foo*HZ;

>> 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.
> vmstat.c:
> hz = sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK); /* get ticks/s from system */

Oops! Sorry I missed that one. Not that it matters for
the 2.5.25 kernel and above, but that code really should
be using the Hertz value supplied by libproc.

> And yes I know the libproc is *evil* in this area.

Hell yes. It's going to remain evil until the 2.4 kernel
is a distant memory. Debian uses a 2.2 kernel in the
upcoming release, so it will be a good long time until
everyone is using a 2.6 kernel. When 2.8 comes out,
Debian will finally stop using 2.4 and I can get rid of
my evil hack.

Hey, I asked for a clean way to get HZ. I didn't even
get "send a patch"; I got BS about the 2.5.25 behavior
being standard, as if it had already been implemented.

> The rest should be an implementation detail of sysconf().

That's broken. It can't even correctly report the
number of processors you have.
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:0.112 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site