Re: #define HZ 1024 -- negative effects?

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Dan Maas wrote:

> The only other possibility I can think of is a scheduler anomaly. A thread
> arose on this list recently about strange scheduling behavior of processes
> using local IPC - even though one process had readable data pending, the
> kernel would still go idle until the next timer interrupt. If this is the
> case, then HZ=1024 would kick the system back into action more quickly...

Hmm.  I've caught tasks looping here (experimental tree but..) with
interrupts enabled, but schedule never being called despite having
many runnable tasks.

        -Mike

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/