Martin Dalecki writes:
> U\277ytkownik Jeff Garzik napisa\263:
>> I don't see that making 'HZ' a variable is really an option, because
>> many drivers and scheduler-related code will be wildly inaccurate as
>> soon as HZ actually changes values.
Definitely:
my_timeout = foo*HZ;
>> So that leaves us with the option of changing all the code related to
>> waiting to be based on msecs and usecs. Which I would love to do, but
>> that's a lot of work, both code- and audit-wise.
>
> vmstat.c:
>
> hz = sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK); /* get ticks/s from system */
Oops! Sorry I missed that one. Not that it matters for
the 2.5.25 kernel and above, but that code really should
be using the Hertz value supplied by libproc.
> And yes I know the libproc is *evil* in this area.
Hell yes. It's going to remain evil until the 2.4 kernel
is a distant memory. Debian uses a 2.2 kernel in the
upcoming release, so it will be a good long time until
everyone is using a 2.6 kernel. When 2.8 comes out,
Debian will finally stop using 2.4 and I can get rid of
my evil hack.
Hey, I asked for a clean way to get HZ. I didn't even
get "send a patch"; I got BS about the 2.5.25 behavior
being standard, as if it had already been implemented.
> The rest should be an implementation detail of sysconf().
That's broken. It can't even correctly report the
number of processors you have.
-
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 - 22:00:20 EST