Re: setitimer 1 usec fails

[george anzinger (george@mvista.com)]

David Mosberger wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 26 May 2003 15:00:53 -0700, george anzinger <george@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>
>   George> As a test, you might try your test with HZ=1000 (a number I
>   George> recommend for ia64, if at all possible).
>
> I suspect you might have a slightly biased view on this. ;-) Yes,
> HZ=1000 makes some problems easier to convert ticks to real time, but
> slower to convert real time to ticks.

Ulrich has written something on this.  Maybe he could comment  :)

-g

> Besides, the Linux kernel MUST work with (fairly) arbitrary HZ values,
> because some platforms just don't have much of a choice (e.g., Alpha
> is pretty much forced to 1024Hz).
>
> But, yes, on ia64 we can choose HZ to our liking.  If someone presents
> evidence that shows a real benefit for a value other than 1024, I'm
> certainly willing to listen.
>
> 	--david

--
George Anzinger   george@xxxxxxxxxx
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/