Hi,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That makes a ton of sense.
>
> > But on the other hand, increasing HZ has perf/latency benefits, yes? Have
> > these been quantified?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. And I'd regard any such claims with some
> scepticism.
>
> > I'd either like to see a HZ that has balanced
> > power/performance, or could we perhaps detect we are on a system that cares
> > about power (aka a laptop) and tweak its value at runtime?
Want a config option? Either int or bool (CONFIG_LOW_HZ). It's not too
much effort.
Regards,
Thunder
-- (Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode) ------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Version: 3.12 GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$ N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G e++++ h* r--- y- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST