On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:44:35 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Mark Mielke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:09:21PM -0600, Cort Dougan wrote:
>> > Yes, please do make it a config option. 10x interrupt overhead makes me
>> > worry. It lets users tailor the kernel to their expected load.
>>
>> All this talk is getting to me.
>>
>> I thought we recently (1 month ago? 2 months ago?) concluded that
>> increases in interrupt frequency only affects performance by a very
>> small amount, but generates an increase in responsiveness. The only
>> real argument against that I have seen, is the 'power conservation'
>> argument. The idea was, that the scheduler itself did not execute
>> on most interrupts. The clock is updated, and that is about all.
>
>On UML and mainframe Linux, *any* periodic clock tick
>is heavy overhead when you have a large number of
>(mostly idle) instances of Linux running, isn't it?
Without knowing what UML is in this context, but assuming that mainframe
means IBM s390 mainframes, I can confirm that any periodic clock tick
is heavy overhead. With or without (mostly) idle instances.
/Per
regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich
http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.
Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."