Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible

From: Benjamin LaHaise (bcrl@redhat.com)
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 16:35:55 EST

Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Reply: Martin Dalecki: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:28:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > But on the other hand, increasing HZ has perf/latency benefits, yes? Have
> > these been quantified?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. And I'd regard any such claims with some
> scepticism.

The most obvious one is the reduced latency of select/poll timeouts.

-ben

-- 
"You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier."
-
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/

Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Next in thread: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Reply: Andrew Morton: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Reply: Martin Dalecki: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST