Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
I don't think this will fly because we take a big performance hit by
calculating HZ at runtime.
I think it might be an acceptable solution for a distribution that really
needed it, since it should be fairly simple. However, it's definitely not
the right solution.
HOWEVER. I bet that somebody who really really cares (hint hint) could
easily make HZ be 1000, and then dynamically tweak the divisor at bootup
to be either 1000, 250, or 100, and then increment "jiffies" by 1, 4 or
My wild guess is that this is 20 lines of code, plus another 20 for
"setup", so that you can choose between 100/250/1000 Hz with a kernel
It wouldn't be "dynamic" at first - you'd just set it up at bootup, and
set a "jiffies_increment" variable, and change the
jiffies_64 += jiffies_increment;
and you'd be done.
Really. I dare you guys. First one to send me a tested patch gets a gold
Then, a year from now, people will realize how _easy_ it is to change the
jiffies_increment on the fly, and add a /sys/kernel/timer_frequency file,
and then you can switch it around at run-time.
Trust me. When I say that the right thing to do is to just have a fixed
(but high) HZ value, and just changing the timer rate, I'm -right-.
I'm always right. This time I'm just even more right than usual.
And humble, too ;-)
Do you actually have something against tickless, or just don't think it
can be done in reasonable time? I can see this needing very careful
thought on SMP.
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/