From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:22:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:22:39 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:7932 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:22:33 -0400 Message-ID: <3B683AC4.E0F2BF9E@mvista.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 10:22:12 -0700 From: george anzinger Organization: Monta Vista Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20b i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: No 100 HZ timer ! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I have just posted a patch on sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers to the 2.4.7 kernel with both ticked and tick less options, switch able at any time via a /proc interface. The system is instrumented with Andrew Mortons time pegs with a couple of enhancements so you can easily see your clock/ timer overhead (thanks Andrew). Please take a look at this system and let me know if a tick less system is worth further effort. The testing I have done seems to indicate a lower overhead on a lightly loaded system, about the same overhead with some load, and much more overhead with a heavy load. To me this seems like the wrong thing to do. We would like as nearly a flat overhead to load curve as we can get and the ticked system seems to be much better in this regard. Still there may be applications where this works. comments? RESULTS? George