Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:55:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:55:17 -0400 Received: from hermine.idb.hist.no ([158.38.50.15]:4100 "HELO hermine.idb.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:55:16 -0400 Message-ID: <3CBD2A56.857B6D5E@aitel.hist.no> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:55:02 +0200 From: Helge Hafting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [no] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.8-dj1 i686) X-Accept-Language: no, en, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: davidm@hpl.hp.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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). Did you try a parallell build, with the number of processes at least 2-3 times the number of processors? Then you get more of the cache-miss effects from switching processes, not merely the overhead of the fairly fast scheduler. Helge Hafting - 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/