[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt
    Linus Torvalds <> writes:

    > And in short-term things, the timeval/jiffie conversion is likely to be a
    > _bigger_ issue than the crystal frequency conversion.
    > So we should aim for a HZ value that makes it easy to convert to and from
    > the standard user-space interface formats. 100Hz, 250Hz and 1000Hz are all
    > good values for that reason. 864 is not.

    Probably only theoretical, and probably the hardware isn't up to it...
    But what if we have:
    - 64-bit jiffies done in hardware (a counter). 1 cycle = 1 microsecond
    or even a CPU clock cycle. Can *APIC or another HPET do that?
    - 64-bit "match timer" (i.e., a register in the counter which fires IRQ
    when it matches the counter value)
    - the CPU(s) sorting the timer list and programming "match timer" with
    software timer next to be executed. Upon firing the timer, a new "next
    to be executed" timer would be programmed into the counter's "match

    We would have no timer ticks when nobody requested them - the CPUs would
    be allowed to sleep for, say, even 50 ms when no task is RUNNING.
    Krzysztof Halasa
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-07-14 12:29    [W:0.019 / U:50.408 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site