is the tickless kernel now the "standard"?

[greg@kroah.com (Greg KH)]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 01:48:43PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 12:41:30PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > >   given that ubuntu ships with the kernel configured for tickless
> > > behaviour, and that RHEL6 also ships tickless, is it safe to say that
> > > tickless is now the standard configuration?  is there a compelling
> > > reason to *not* run tickless with the latest 2.6 kernels?
> >
> > Yes it is the "standard" and no, there is not any reason to not enable
> > it.  Unless you like burning extra power for no reason.
> 
>   ok, good to know.  i assume, then, that it's fairly pointless to use
> the value of "jiffies" for anything that requires even moderate
> accuracy.  i was poking around the timer code, and i can see this in
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c:

No, never access jiffies directly, use the correct delay and timer
functions instead, they will handle things properly.  And that's the way
to get correct accuracy if you need it.

thanks,

greg k-h