From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751173AbVHQRlK (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:41:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751185AbVHQRlK (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:41:10 -0400 Received: from mail.aknet.ru ([82.179.72.26]:42250 "EHLO mail.aknet.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751173AbVHQRlJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:41:09 -0400 Message-ID: <430376B8.9040404@aknet.ru> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:41:12 +0400 From: Stas Sergeev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041020 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Revell Cc: john stultz , Linux kernel Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] API for timer hooks References: <42FDF744.2070205@aknet.ru> <1124126354.8630.3.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <43024ADA.8030508@aknet.ru> <1124244580.30036.5.camel@mindpipe> <430363F2.7090009@aknet.ru> <1124296844.3591.7.camel@mindpipe> In-Reply-To: <1124296844.3591.7.camel@mindpipe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. Lee Revell wrote: > Lots of things aren't doable with the current timer API, hence all the > recent work on dynamic tick. I've found only this about the dynamic tick: http://lwn.net/Articles/138969/ and it seems that it is intended only to slow down the interrupts when there is no work to do, rather than to allow setting an arbitrary frequencies or something like that. I guess now I realized how you (and Nish) assume I could use it: is it that I should set CONFIG_HZ to the value I need at compile-time, and just remove all the timer reprogramming from the driver in a hope the dynamic-tick patch will slow it down itself when necessary? Or am I misunderstanding the suggestion? That would be really excellent, but it there a patch around that allows to set an arbitrary CONFIG_HZ values, or should I try to code up one myself? I think I tried that a few years ago, and the code all around the kernel was resisting to work with HZ>1000, but I guess now it was all changed.