Henning Brauer [hb-open...@ml.bsws.de] wrote: > > Any idea why this was so much less of a problem with altq? > > it wasn't... the hfsc core was the same, and cbq worked exactly the same > way too. > > People might not have paid as much attention? I dunno. >
Raising HZ was frowned upon when I ported altq because it sped up _everything_ for the benefit of a potentially unused subsystem. I bet there is a technique to be learned from tickless kernels here.
