From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: HZ in 2.6 on PPC32 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Michel =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E4nzer?= Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org In-Reply-To: <1061654591.1251.34.camel@thor.holligenstrasse29.lan> References: <1061654591.1251.34.camel@thor.holligenstrasse29.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Message-Id: <1061657994.772.6.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:59:54 +0200 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 18:03, Michel Dänzer wrote: > Why is this still defined to 100? I'm running at 1000 now, and it makes > a huge difference for interactivity. Moreover, CONFIG_PREEMPT now makes > things even better instead of worse. :) > > If the reason is the slow PPC32 CPUs still around, maybe make it a > config option? A config option would probably be a better idea, I doubt lots of embedded or low end configs wants HZ at 1000... Regarding CONFIG_PREEMPT, it's really weird that it "makes things worse" for you with HZ at 100. But that may also be the 2.6-test scheduler suckyness... Ben. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/