Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:44:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:44:04 -0400 Received: from petasus.ch.intel.com ([143.182.124.5]:2156 "EHLO petasus.ch.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:44:02 -0400 Message-ID: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7F94@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> From: "Grover, Andrew" To: "'CaT'" , Benjamin LaHaise Cc: Andrew Morton , "Grover, Andrew" , Linux Subject: RE: HZ, preferably as small as possible Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:46:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1166 Lines: 29 > From: CaT [mailto:cat@zip.com.au] > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 05:42:51PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:38:32PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > OK, I'll grant that. Why is this useful? > > > > Think video playback, where you want to queue the frame to > be played as > > close to the correct 1/60s time as possible. With HZ=100, > the code will > > Or 1/50 (think PAL), no? (Of course HZ=100 would be sweet for that. ;) I don't know if I should mention this, but... Win2k's default timer tick is 10ms (i.e. 100HZ) but it will go as low as 1ms (1000HZ) if people request timers with that level of granularity. On the fly. So, a changing tick *can* be done. If Linux does the same thing, seems like everyone is happy. What are the obstacles to this for Linux? If code is based on the assumption of a constant timer tick, I humbly assert that the code is broken. Regards -- Andy - 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/