From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: + acpi-keep-track-of-timer-broadcasting-fix.patch added to -mm tree Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:34:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20070130203415.GD1246@elte.hu> References: <200701282247.l0SMl3rG005194@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <200701282153.29132.lenb@kernel.org> <20070129065540.GB23785@elte.hu> <200701291855.36352.lenb@kernel.org> <1170115975.29240.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:46610 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751400AbXA3UhX (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:37:23 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1170115975.29240.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Len Brown , akpm@osdl.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, ak@muc.de, johnstul@us.ibm.com, zippel@linux-m68k.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, asit.k.mallick@intel.com, Arjan van de Ven * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Another alternative would be for systems with C3 to fall-back to a > > periodic tick scheme that we have today. From a power point of view, > > HZ=100 would be only a little bit worse than Windows HZ=64. > > However, FC6 seems to have marched off an built with > > HZ=1000 -- so we'd have some challenges with static HZ too... > > With dyntick enabled kernels you get ~ HZ=37 as the worst case with > PIT, while we go down to ~4HZ with HPET / apic timer (as long as it > works) s/worst case/best case the lower we can make the timer irq rate on an idle system, the better. HPET allows us to go from 37 Hz down to 4 Hz. Ingo