[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: dynamic-hz
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 12:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Con Kolivas <> wrote:
> > The performance benefit, if any, is often lost in noise during
> > benchmarks and when there, is less than 1%. So I was wondering if you
> > had some specific advantage in mind for this patch? Is there some
> > arch-specific advantage? I can certainly envision disadvantages to lower Hz.
> There are apparently some laptops which exhibit appreciable latency between
> the start of ACPI sleep and actually consuming less power. The 1ms wakeup
> frequency will shorten battery life on these machines significantly. (I
> forget the exact numbers - Len will know).

Is there any recommended lower bound setting?
Would there be a point in recommending lower settings for desktops
running only text consoles opposed to X desktops?


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 14:08    [W:0.168 / U:7.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site