Re: Why is HZ on an Alpha 1024?

Perry Harrington (pedward@sun4.apsoft.com)
Fri, 1 May 1998 09:28:27 -0700 (PDT)

>
> In article <199805010256.TAA19303@sun4.apsoft.com> you write:
> >I have a 166Mhz UDB, and the machine is doggish. I had the
> >thought of chaning Hz to be 100, like in the PC. The Rubini
> >book states that the higher the HZ, the more interrupt overhead
> >you incurr...I've got a SLOW Alpha. Would this help the Alpha?
> >Why was 1024 chosen by the Kernel Gods???
>
> A 166MHz UDB is slow anyway. There is a big difference between the 21064

I've got the 21066AA.

> processor series (such as in the UDB) and the 21164 series. Moreover,
> the harddisk embedded in UDBs is sloooooow; and gcc is goofy on such

I've got a FAST SCSI-2 disk on it. With egcs and an egcs optimized krenel.

> processors, and takes much time to optimize.

That's not the issue, I know it's slow, I was just wondering if I could
make it faster by reducing the interrupt overhead.

>
> 1024 has been chosen because 1000 is not a power of 2.
>
> --Thomas Pornin
> 

-- 
Perry Harrington       Linux rules all OSes.    APSoft      ()
email: perry@apsoft.com 			Think Blue. /\


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu