[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Increasing the HZ can only improve responsiveness, however, there is a
> > cost (mentioned by others). The cost is that the scheduler is executed
> > more often per second. If the scheduler does the same amount of work
> > per tick, but there are more ticks per second, the scheduler does more
> > work overall, and the CPU is free for use by the processes less.
> Why are you discussing Linux 1.2 ?
> Linux is not running the scheduler each cpu tick and hasn't
> done this for years.

Very true. However it does run the timer/clock code every tick, which is still
additional overhead when the tick time is reduced.

The basic idea (increased overhead at higher HZ) is sound, the details are not.


Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email:
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 13:22    [W:0.092 / U:21.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site