Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:52:53 +0200 | From | Artur Skawina <> | Subject | Re: Measured overhead of timer interrupts |
| |
> > > what i would be interested in seeing is: the time it takes to > > > run a cpu bound app (eg raytracing am image) with HZ=100 and HZ=1024. > > > That would give a more realistic approximation of the overhead that > > > increasing HZ adds. > > > > Then do the bench, nobody prevents you from doing so.
the point was more that the #s presented in this thread were not very relevant.
> Should HZ=1024 be safe on x86? > > If it's not completely safe, what do I need to fix and submit patches for > so that we can be HZ=1024 on x86 for 2.4? :)
i'd start by looking at eg
http://www.garloff.de/kurt/linux/222-400hz.diff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |