[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers

> >In the end, Linus will decide this anyway. I can understand that you
> >don't want to change your application. Help developing the dynamic
> >tick patch, and maybe you won't have to =)
> From what I can tell, tick skipping works fine right now, it just needs
> some cleanup. Thus I'd expect something like it will get integrated
> into 2.6.14. If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000.
> In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel?
> As an app programmer, it'd be nice not to have to support 2.6.13
> differently from 2.6.(x!=13). For my app, busy waiting means a ~12%
> load increase for 2.6.13 compared to (probably) all other 2.6 kernel
> versions. That's certainly violating the principle of least surprise.
> Up to now, it was easy enough to tell people "upgrade from 2.4.x and
> it'll work better". Now it gets more complicated.

BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
as siple as "go 2.6"...

teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be.
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: 2005-08-02 13:33    [W:0.134 / U:0.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site