Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:23:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:23:03 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:6643 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:23:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [STATUS 2.5] July 10, 2002 From: Robert Love To: Cort Dougan Cc: Ville Herva , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020710142005.U762@host110.fsmlabs.com> References: <3D2B89AC.25661.91896FEB@localhost> <1026323661.1178.73.camel@sinai> <20020710191824.GT1548@niksula.cs.hut.fi> <1026331418.1244.82.camel@sinai> <20020710142005.U762@host110.fsmlabs.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 10 Jul 2002 13:25:38 -0700 Message-Id: <1026332738.1244.86.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 916 Lines: 25 On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 13:20, Cort Dougan wrote: > Why was the rate incremented to maintain interactive performance? Wasn't > that the whole idea of the pre-empt work? Does the burden of pre-empt > actually require this? I did not say it was increased to improve interactivity response - and it certainly has little or nothing to do with kernel preemption being merged. I suspect a big benefit would be poll/select performance. I think this is why RedHat increased HZ in their kernels. You would have to ask Linus exactly what his intentions were. > It seems that the added inefficiency of these extra interrupts is going to > drag performance down. Robert Love - 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/