![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 18:00, Giuliano Pochini wrote: > On 03-Jun-2003 Con Kolivas wrote: > > I've attempted to answer the question does 1000Hz hurt responsiveness in > > 2.5 as much as I've found in 2.4; since subjectively the difference > > wasn't there in 2.5. Using the same config with preempt enabled here are > > results from 2.5.70-mm3 set at default 1000Hz and at 100Hz (mm31): > > Is there any problem using a frequency other than 100 and 1000Hz ? Not at all. These were chosen because they were the default 2.4 (100) and 2.5 (1000) frequencies. The large difference in Hz was postulated to increase the in-kernel overhead and the amount of time spent tearing down and building up the cpu cache again. 2.4 running at 1000Hz shows poor performance at high (>4) loads whereas 2.5 doesn't seem to do this. I originally thought it was cache thrashing/trashing responsible. However since 2.5 performance is almost comparable at 100/1000 it seems to be that the pure interrupt overhead in 2.5 is lower? Con - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||