Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:31:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:31:47 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:40205 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:31:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:31:20 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: "Adam J. Richter" Cc: Subject: Re: #define HZ 1024 -- negative effects? In-Reply-To: <200104261819.LAA03836@adam.yggdrasil.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote: > I have not tried it, but I would think that setting HZ to 1024 > should make a big improvement in responsiveness. > > Currently, the time slice allocated to a standard Linux > process is 5*HZ, or 50ms when HZ is 100. That means that you > will notice keystrokes being echoed slowly in X when you have > just one or two running processes, Rubbish. Whenever a higher-priority thread than the current thread becomes runnable the current thread will get preempted, regardless of whether its timeslices is over or not. And please, DO try things before proposing a radical change to the kernel ;) regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/