From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from www.tglx.de (www.tglx.de [62.245.132.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8EE8B70D1 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:33:25 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:33:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] allow low HZ values? In-Reply-To: <1286836212.5220.19.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: References: <20101011201121.GA953@tpepper-t61p.dolavim.us> <1286836212.5220.19.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Marcio Saito , Jiri Slaby , John Stultz , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Pepper , Ingo Molnar , Paul Mackerras , "H. Peter Anvin" , Avantika Mathur , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 13:11 -0700, Tim Pepper wrote: > > I'm not necessarily wanting to open up the age old question of "what is > > a good HZ", but we were doing some testing on timer tick overheads for > > HPC applications and this came up... > > Note that this is also very useful when working on CPU prototypes > implemented in FPGAs and running at something like 12Mhz :-) /me hands benh 0.5$ for a FPGA upgrade