Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:25:32 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 11:38 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > That's a very subjective viewpoint. Realize that this is a balancing > act between latency and overhead ... and you're firmly only looking > at one side of the argument, instead of taking a comprimise in the > middle ... > > If I start arguing for 100HZ on the grounds that it's much more efficient, > will that make 250/300 look much better to you? ;-)
Mostly my argument is that all technical arguments aside, it's crazy to change this in the middle of a stable kernel series.
My other objection is that 90% of the arguments for HZ=250 are based on battery life. But most Linux systems still don't run on batteries, so I object to having to take a performance hit (a latency hit, which is the same as performance for multimedia apps) for their sake.
Tickless + sub HZ timers is a win for everyone, the multimedia people get better latency, and the laptop people get to run longer.
I guess CONFIG_HZ makes sense if the tickless solutions are not going to be ready anytime soon. But I don't see the problem with leaving the default at 1000HZ and letting the laptop users lower it.
Lee
- 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/
| |