Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.12-ck4 | Date | Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:00:49 +1000 |
| |
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:28, Christian Hesse wrote: > On Wednesday 27 July 2005 13:11, Con Kolivas wrote: > > HZ-864.diff > > +My take on the never ending config HZ debate. Apart from the number not > > being pleasing on the eyes, a HZ value that isn't a multiple of 10 is > > perfectly valid. Setting HZ to 864 gives us very similar low latency > > performance to a 1000HZ kernel, decreases overhead ever so slightly, and > > minimises clock drift substantially. The -server patch uses HZ=82 for > > similar reasons, with the emphasis on throughput rather than low latency. > > Madness? Probably, but then I can't see any valid argument against using > > these values. > > Some time ago I tried with HZ=209, but the system then freezes after a few > minutes... Any ideas what could be the reason? Are only even numbers > allowed?
I don't really know. Perhaps there's some division or multiplication magic in a driver somewhere on your kernel that disagrees with it (although it shouldn't matter).
Cheers, Con - 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/
| |