From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261484AbVGLOWu (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:22:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261469AbVGLOWe (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:22:34 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:60813 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261454AbVGLOVd (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:21:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt From: Lee Revell To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Chris Friesen , Diego Calleja , azarah@nosferatu.za.org, akpm@osdl.org, cw@f00f.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, christoph@lameter.org In-Reply-To: <188690000.1121142633@[10.10.2.4]> References: <200506231828.j5NISlCe020350@hera.kernel.org> <20050708214908.GA31225@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20050708145953.0b2d8030.akpm@osdl.org> <1120928891.17184.10.camel@lycan.lan> <1120932991.6488.64.camel@mindpipe> <20050709203920.394e970d.diegocg@gmail.com> <1120934466.6488.77.camel@mindpipe> <176640000.1121107087@flay> <1121113532.2383.6.camel@mindpipe> <42D2D912.3090505@nortel.com> <1121128260.2632.12.camel@mindpipe> <165840000.1121141256@[10.10.2.4]> <1121141602.2632.31.camel@mindpipe> <188690000.1121142633@[10.10.2.4]> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:21:31 -0400 Message-Id: <1121178091.2632.47.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 21:30 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > Look back in the thread. It made kernel compiles about 5% faster on a > fairly large box. I think the SGI people did it originally because it > caused them even larger problems. > Right, I saw those, but you don't expect to change the default HZ based on that one test, do you? How about some numbers for a regular desktop? > I'm not saying their aren't arguments on both sides ... there are. I > just agree with you there's a lot of hand-waving going on ... but > probably not agreeing as to who it's coming from ;-) > Well, I think the burden of proof is on those who are proposing radical changes, IOW I don't think I should be required to produce any numbers to justify the status quo. Lee