--Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 00:13:21 -0400):
> On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 21:07 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> >> --Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Monday, July 11, 2005 20:30:59 >> -0400): >> >> > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 14:39 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: >> >> Lee Revell wrote: >> >> >> >> > Tickless + sub HZ timers is a win for everyone, the multimedia people >> >> > get better latency, and the laptop people get to run longer. >> >> >> >> IIRC it's not a win for many systems. Throughput goes down due to timer >> >> manipulation overhead. >> > >> > Makes sense. Anyway, this whole thread has been pretty hand wavey, I >> > propose that until we see some numbers from the HZ=250 advocates, we >> > leave the default alone. >> >> Odd. Since I showed you some numbers already ... and nobody from the latency >> side of the argument has come up with any? > > Sorry, I have not seen any. Got a link? Look back in the thread. It made kernel compiles about 5% faster on a fairly large box. I think the SGI people did it originally because it caused them even larger problems. I'm not saying their aren't arguments on both sides ... there are. I just agree with you there's a lot of hand-waving going on ... but probably not agreeing as to who it's coming from ;-) Some sort of comprimise has to be struck for now, until we get sub-HZ timers. I'd prefer 100, personally (I had that set as default in my tree for a long time). Some people would prefer 1000 or even more, maybe. 250/300 seems like a reasonable comprimise to me. Exactly what problems *does* it cause (in visible effect, not "timers are less granular"). Jittery audio/video? How much worse is it? M. - 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/
