![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:36:19AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > The performance benefit, if any, is often lost in noise during > benchmarks and when there, is less than 1%. So I was wondering if you > had some specific advantage in mind for this patch? Is there some > arch-specific advantage? I can certainly envision disadvantages to lower Hz. My last number I've here is 1% for kernel compile. We're not talking fancy desktop stuff here, we're talking about raw computing servers that runs in userspace 99.9% of the time where the 1% loss is going to be multiplied dozen or hundred of times. For those HZ=1000 is a pure tangible disavantage. For desktops 1% of cpu being lost is not an issue of course. - 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 14:08 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||