[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: dynamic-hz

> > > 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?

I tried defining HZ to 10 once, and there are some #if arrays in the
kernel that prevented me from doing that.

Some drivers do timeouts based on jiffies; having HZ=1 may turn 20msec
timeout into 1sec, that could hurt a lot in the error case...

People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
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:0.161 / U:6.288 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site