On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 11:38 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > That's a very subjective viewpoint. Realize that this is a balancing > act between latency and overhead ... and you're firmly only looking > at one side of the argument, instead of taking a comprimise in the > middle ... > > If I start arguing for 100HZ on the grounds that it's much more efficient, > will that make 250/300 look much better to you? ;-)
Mostly my argument is that all technical arguments aside, it's crazy to change this in the middle of a stable kernel series. My other objection is that 90% of the arguments for HZ=250 are based on battery life. But most Linux systems still don't run on batteries, so I object to having to take a performance hit (a latency hit, which is the same as performance for multimedia apps) for their sake. Tickless + sub HZ timers is a win for everyone, the multimedia people get better latency, and the laptop people get to run longer. I guess CONFIG_HZ makes sense if the tickless solutions are not going to be ready anytime soon. But I don't see the problem with leaving the default at 1000HZ and letting the laptop users lower it. Lee - 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/
