Return-Path: Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <157344-13684>; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:55:12 -0500 Received: from caffeine.ix.net.nz ([203.97.100.28]:1200 "EHLO caffeine.ix.net.nz" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]") by vger.rutgers.edu with ESMTP id <157670-13684>; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 02:30:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:56:04 +1300 From: Chris Wedgwood To: "B. James Phillippe" Cc: Kurt Garloff , Linux kernel list Subject: Re: [PATCH] HZ change for ix86 Message-ID: <19990107225604.B1900@caffeine.ix.net.nz> References: <19990105094830.A17862@kg1.ping.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95i In-Reply-To: ; from B. James Phillippe on Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 09:25:25PM -0800 Disposition-Notification-To: Disposition Test X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Content-Length: 677 Lines: 19 On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 09:25:25PM -0800, B. James Phillippe wrote: > I don't know anything about it (and my box is an Alpha for which HZ > is 1024), but, one ignorant proposal: would it perhaps be > worthwhile to have the HZ value higher for faster (x86) systems > based on the target picked in make config? Say, your 400 for > Pentium+ and 100 for 486 or lower..? I musted have missed the reset of this thread -- what exactly are people wanting to acheive with a higher timer frequency? -cw - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/