lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 3 Jun 2003 06:09:12 -0700
FromWilliam Lee Irwin III <>
SubjectRe: [BENCHMARK] 100Hz v 1000Hz with contest
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 18:00, Giuliano Pochini wrote:
>> Is there any problem using a frequency other than 100 and 1000Hz ?

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:36:49PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> 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?

You could try profiling cache misses etc.

I blame count_active_tasks(). =)


-- wli
-
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