Re: [LARTC] [tcng] PSCHED_CPU ?

["Vladimír Trebický" <druid@mail.cz>]

In my opinion there is no reason not to use PSCHED_CPU except those around
APM and architecture. If you don't want to use APM and do have Athlon use
PSCHED_CPU.

----- Original Message -----
From: "raptor" <raptor@tvskat.net>
To: "Vladimír Trebický" <druid@mail.cz>
Cc: <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [LARTC] [tcng] PSCHED_CPU ?


> Vladimír Trebický <druid@mail.cz> wrote:
> |The problem with PSCHED_CPU is that the time is derived by reading of TSC
> |registry which is measure counter of the processor. TSC exists on Intel
> |platform from the times of Pentium but sometimes cannot be used as a
> |counter, for example with APM (advanced power management) turned on.
>
> ]- that's good then 'cause I didn't compiled power-management into the
kernel :")
> Do u know any other reason not to use PSCHED_CPU ?
>
> In the past I have setup "HZ = 1000" when building QoS is it wise to do it
if the only purpose of this computer is QoS+Firewall and of course it is
powerfull enought 1.8GHz.
> And I don't expect it to exceed 1000 slow-qos-channels and handle not more
than 1Mb/s most of the time.
>
> raptor
> PS.Sorry for the ignorance what is TSC-regitry and its use ? thanx..
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/