Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:22:29 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: dynamic-hz |
| |
Hi!
> > > 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...
Pavel -- 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |