On 8 March 2010 17:49, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> Ok. I tried to cat /dev/irqalloc and by far (2 orders of magnitude)
>> the highest number is
>>
>> 32 0 45425578 clock
>>
>> What is the meaning?
>> Is this Ok?
>
> yes. it should be fine. 9atom cranks up HZ to 1000.
> this allows accurate sleepi
> Ok. I tried to cat /dev/irqalloc and by far (2 orders of magnitude)
> the highest number is
>
> 32 0 45425578 clock
>
> What is the meaning?
> Is this Ok?
yes. it should be fine. 9atom cranks up HZ to 1000.
this allows accurate sleeping delays down to 1ms.
this shouldn't be a problem, even
On 8 March 2010 17:21, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> my system is doing practically nothing. All 'stats' graphs are low
>> with the exception of 'i'. I'm having like 1600 interrups per second
>> (so I see a number instead of just the graph). Is this normal? How can
>> I tell what those interrupts are?
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my system is doing practically nothing. All 'stats' graphs are low
> with the exception of 'i'. I'm having like 1600 interrups per second
> (so I see a number instead of just the graph). Is this normal? How can
> I tell what those i
> my system is doing practically nothing. All 'stats' graphs are low
> with the exception of 'i'. I'm having like 1600 interrups per second
> (so I see a number instead of just the graph). Is this normal? How can
> I tell what those interrupts are?
if you are running 9atom, /dev/irqalloc 3rd colum
