Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

Lee Revell
2005-07-12T04:13:26Z

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 21:07 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
> --Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote (on Monday, July 11, 2005 20:30:59 -0400):
>
> > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 14:39 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> >> Lee Revell wrote:
> >>
> >> > Tickless + sub HZ timers is a win for everyone, the multimedia people
> >> > get better latency, and the laptop people get to run longer.
> >>
> >> IIRC it's not a win for many systems. Throughput goes down due to timer
> >> manipulation overhead.
> >
> > Makes sense. Anyway, this whole thread has been pretty hand wavey, I
> > propose that until we see some numbers from the HZ=250 advocates, we
> > leave the default alone.
>
> Odd. Since I showed you some numbers already ... and nobody from the latency
> side of the argument has come up with any?

Sorry, I have not seen any. Got a link?

Lee