Re: 2.6.12-ck4

From: Con Kolivas
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 07:05:48 EST

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:28, Christian Hesse wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 13:11, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > HZ-864.diff
> > +My take on the never ending config HZ debate. Apart from the number not
> > being pleasing on the eyes, a HZ value that isn't a multiple of 10 is
> > perfectly valid. Setting HZ to 864 gives us very similar low latency
> > performance to a 1000HZ kernel, decreases overhead ever so slightly, and
> > minimises clock drift substantially. The -server patch uses HZ=82 for
> > similar reasons, with the emphasis on throughput rather than low latency.
> > Madness? Probably, but then I can't see any valid argument against using
> > these values.
> Some time ago I tried with HZ=209, but the system then freezes after a few
> minutes... Any ideas what could be the reason? Are only even numbers
> allowed?

I don't really know. Perhaps there's some division or multiplication magic in
a driver somewhere on your kernel that disagrees with it (although it
shouldn't matter).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at