From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Billy Biggs Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:55:29 +0000 Subject: Re: HZ > 100 overhead Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sound@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 est@hyperreal.org wrote: > Paul Barton-Davis discourseth: > > > > > >Wouldn't you say that an HZ > 100 kernel is the cleanest solution? > > > > its the cleanest, but not the best. HZ = 1000 adds about 8% overhead > > to IRQ processing *all the time*. > > Are you *sure* about this? I seem to remember there was some debate > about that figure on linux-kernel. Just to add to the confusion, I remember that this only adds significant overhead on older machines. Regardless, a higher HZ value should be standard, and switching back to a lower one (100) should be simply a kernel config option. This is all pretty controversial though. #demoscene on irc.openprojects.net for people who support this idea. :) #linux on linuxnet for some people who don't support this idea. :) -- Billy Biggs vektor@div8.net http://www.div8.net/billy wbiggs@uwaterloo.ca