![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | |||||||||||||