Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 03:17:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 03:17:27 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:39698 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 03:17:26 -0400 To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ? In-Reply-To: <3CC4861C.F21859A6@mvista.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen Date: 23 Apr 2002 09:17:25 +0200 Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox writes: > > The problem is in accounting (or time slicing if you prefer) where we > > need to start a timer each time a task is context switched to, and stop > > it when the task is switched away. The overhead is purely in the set up > > and tear down. MOST of these never expire. > > Done properly on many platforms a variable tick is very very easy and also > very efficient to handle. X86 is a paticular problem case because the timer > is so expensive to fiddle with Depends. On modern x86 you can either use the local APIC timer or the mmtimers (ftp://download.intel.com/ial/home/sp/mmts097.pdf - should be in newer x86 chipsets). Both should be better than the 8254 timer and are also not expensive to work with. -Andi - 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/