[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: No 100 HZ timer !
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 08:07:04AM -0400, Mark Salisbury wrote:
> which kind of U/K accaounting are you referring to?
> are you referring to global changes in world time? are you referring to time
> used by a process?

The later.

> I think the reduction of clock interrupts by a factor of 10 would buy us some
> performance margin that could be traded for a slightly more complex handler.

It depends on your workload if you can trade that in. e.g. when a few hundred TCP
sockets are active a lot of timer ticks will run some timer handler. Also generally
the kernel has quite a lot of timers. There is some reduction on a idle system. That
is no doubt useful for VM/UML/VMware where you can have idle sessions hanging around,
but otherwise it's not very interesting to optimize idle systems (except maybe for
power saving purposes)

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: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.207 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site