[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:0.019 / U:1.812 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site