[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:0.234 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site