Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?

[Tim Blechmann]

On 09/20/2009 01:12 AM, Ben Nizette wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 18:50 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> 
>> Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
>> (given it's effectively free) in situations like:
> 
> Sure HZ=1000 gives you more accurate sleeps, that's kind of the point,
> but since when has it been "effectively free"?
> http://lwn.net/Articles/331607/

i'd be curious, what effect does it have on userspace applications?
like, does it effect the wakeup latency of userspace (pthread)
mutexes/conditions or posix semaphores?

thnx, tim

-- 
tim@xxxxxxxxxx
http://tim.klingt.org

Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can
leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.
  William S. Burroughs

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature