Subject: Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?
From: Ben Nizette <bn@niasdigital.com>
To: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <6278d2220909191050l19f2a446r5ccf1907fd963096@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6278d2220909190747n62f7036dj2e5231fcdc4730fb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090919165501.65d77294@infradead.org>
	 <6278d2220909191050l19f2a446r5ccf1907fd963096@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:12:29 +1000
Message-Id: <1253401950.7587.7.camel@ben-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 591
Lines: 16

On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 18:50 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:

> Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
> (given it's effectively free) in situations like:

Sure HZ=1000 gives you more accurate sleeps, that's kind of the point,
but since when has it been "effectively free"?
http://lwn.net/Articles/331607/

	--Ben.

--
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/