Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible

• Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Enhanced profiling support (was Re: vm lock contention reduction)"
• Previous message: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
• In reply to: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
• Next in thread: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
• Reply: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>
> 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.

OK, I'll grant that. Why is this useful?

-
-
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: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Enhanced profiling support (was Re: vm lock contention reduction)"
• Previous message: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
• In reply to: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
• Next in thread: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible"
• Reply: Benjamin LaHaise: "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