Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965056AbVJ1CEg (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:04:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965058AbVJ1CEg (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:04:36 -0400 Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.204]:24558 "EHLO xproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965056AbVJ1CEg convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:04:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TvREOOGWejpd58kpvAtHCgR+r5umd0Zu5HdfypWrf5Dma08RMXoHBUHqKVm+c1sh6ZGgr+h2C38CKQLDLW/9uvdj3BtHeE7yU4uNddMalBKk4TGaETnJOoVi0S8uMjP51qZp9neRLVFTGLHDCFghYrVV/o5CYR3fWHAYzVwqWRs= Message-ID: <489ecd0c0510271904p127df5a7pe8793ba47d635538@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:04:35 +0800 From: Luke Yang To: Claudio Scordino Subject: Re: The "best" value of HZ Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org In-Reply-To: <200510280118.42731.cloud.of.andor@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <200510280118.42731.cloud.of.andor@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1524 Lines: 36 yes, our Blackfin CPU (from Analog Device) is team interested in it. Dynamically modify HZ will be useful when we evaluate the performance. On 10/28/05, Claudio Scordino wrote: > Hi, > > during the last years there has been a lot of discussion about the "best" > value of HZ... On i386 was 100, then became 1000, and finally was set to 250. > I'm thinking to do an evaluation of this parameter using different > architectures. > > Has anybody thought to give the possibility to modify the value of HZ at boot > time instead of at compile time ? This would allow to easily test different > values on different machines and create a table containing the "best" value > for each architecture... At this moment, instead, we have to recompile the > kernel for each different value :( > > Do you think there would be much work to do that ? > Do you think it would be a desired feature the knowledge of the best value for > each architecture with more precision ? > > Thanks, > > Claudio > - > 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/ > - 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/