![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:04:04AM -0700, George Anzinger wrote: > >One could do this but we want to have a tickless system. The tick is only > >necessary if the time needs to be adjusted. > > I really think a tickless system, for other than UML systems, is a loosing > thing. The accounting overhead on context switch (which increases as the > number of switchs per second) will cause more overhead than a periodic > accounting tick once a respectable load appears. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ On a largely idle system (like notebooks on battery power in typical use) the accounting overhead will be less a problem. However, the CPU being woken up each millisecond will cause an increased battery usage. So if the load is less than a certain threshold, tickless systems do make much sense. Dominik - 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 14:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||