From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261311AbVFUS4l (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:56:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262229AbVFUS4l (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:56:41 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.203]:32307 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261311AbVFUS4i convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:56:38 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cHJbXZlprwUXfN3C4D9edQiqMNa/kvKwxpsM8cybxUWFK9kQPC8TRYk/jYUhrrNjmQQIkKTtCW+w7+NtmMXkkx8i0jX2Fn6mYkH7XmtJRiiGs67tPhCAiJGa0ZCCywGziz80jHb1NH/WlbxMaGyby2ECPbHkGIA2mIfHtsPC18g= Message-ID: <29495f1d050621115636bc6f77@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:56:30 -0700 From: Nish Aravamudan Reply-To: Nish Aravamudan To: Lee Revell Subject: Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1119369028.19357.28.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050620235458.5b437274.akpm@osdl.org> <1119369028.19357.28.camel@mindpipe> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/21/05, Lee Revell wrote: > On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 23:54 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > CONFIG_HZ for x86 and ia64: changes default HZ to 250, make HZ > > Kconfigurable. > > > > Will merge (will switch default to 1000 Hz later if that seems > > necessary) > > Are you serious? You're changing the *default* HZ in a stable kernel > series?!? > > This is a big regression, it degrades the resolution of system calls. Not that my opinion should sway anybody else, but I really would prefer more of the in-kernel sleep callers were converted to use human-time units (and thus were verified to be correct) so that switching HZ will result in the *same* latencies. How much of moving to lower HZ values is due to the fact that everything is request 10ms for 1 jiffy of sleep instead of 1 ms? It's hard to tell if the gain is there or from the lower frequency of interrupts. I've sent out a lot of patches in this direction (using msleep() and msleep_interruptible() and my soft-timer rework on top of John Stultz's timeofday rework converts the entire soft-timer subsystem to use human-time instead of jiffies as it's unit of expiration), but there is still *a lot* of work left to do :( I will keep sending patches, but am being pulled in other directions currently. Just my $.02. Thanks, Nish