From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:38:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:38:10 -0400 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:60688 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:38:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4: variable HZ From: Robert Love To: Neil Conway Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3DAFF5C9.807BE885@ukaea.org.uk> References: <3DAFF5C9.807BE885@ukaea.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 18 Oct 2002 14:44:16 -0400 Message-Id: <1034966657.722.838.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 07:51, Neil Conway wrote: > I was looking at your jiffies_to_clock_t() macro, and I notice that it > will screw up badly if the user chooses a HZ value that isn't a multiple > of the normal value (e.g. 1000 is OK, 512 isn't). OK, sure, but why specify a power-of-two HZ? There is absolutely no reason to, at least on x86. Want 512? 500 will do just as well and has the benefit of (a) being a multiple of the previous HZ and (b) evenly dividing into our concept of time. Robert Love