Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers

Bill Davidsen
2005-08-10T18:58:53Z

Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:29 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>
>>>>I'm pretty sure at least one distro will go with HZ<300 real soon now
>>>>;-).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Any idea what their official recommendation for people running apps that
>>>require the 1ms sleep resolution is? Something along the lines of "Get
>>>bent"?
>>
>>So you busy wait for 1msec, big deal.
>
>
> Which requires changing all those apps. I thought we tried not to break
> userspace with minor kernel version upgrades.

Sounds like you were wrong.

This whole thing is silly, I'm very aware of battery life issues, but in
real ues we are talking about maybe 3% more battery life. People who are
totally anal about it will build their own kernel, or use a vendor
kernel with varioble tick rate, but saving <2BTU/hr is not going to let
anyone buy a smaller A/C unit. The computer user gives off way more than
that.

I would leave it at 1k and push for variable tick, which should make
everyone happy.
>
>
>>Some machines can't even keep time properly with HZ=1000.
>
>
> If your workaround for broken hardware involves screwing over people
> with good hardware, it might be the wrong workaround.
>
>
>> Official recommendation is likely "help us
>>with CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ" or "get over it".
>
>
> IOW, "if you don't like it, get another distro, or compile your own
> kernel".
>
> Lee
>