Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:19:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:19:19 -0400 Received: from ip68-3-107-226.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.3.107.226]:13462 "EHLO grok.yi.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:19:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3CBCE9B3.2050508@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:19:15 -0700 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: davidm@hpl.hp.com, linux-kernel Subject: Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ? In-Reply-To: <15548.22093.57788.557129@napali.hpl.hp.com> <15548.50859.169392.857907@napali.hpl.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Mosberger wrote: > The last time I measured timer tick overhead on ia64 it was well below > 1% of overhead. I don't really like using kernel builds as a > benchmark, because there are far too many variables for the results to > have any long-term or cross-platform value. But since it's popular, I > did measure it quickly on a relatively slow (old) Itanium box: with > 100Hz, the kernel compile was about 0.6% faster than with 1024Hz > (2.4.18 UP kernel). How hard would it be to tune HZ dynamically at run time, either through kernel smarts, or driven from user space by some sort of daemon or other (manual) control? Ben -- Ben Greear President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear - 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/