Re: Power consumption HZ100, HZ250, HZ1000: new numbers

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >In the end, Linus will decide this anyway.  I can understand that you
> >don't want to change your application.  Help developing the dynamic
> >tick patch, and maybe you won't have to =)
> 
> From what I can tell, tick skipping works fine right now, it just needs 
> some cleanup.  Thus I'd expect something like it will get integrated 
> into 2.6.14.  If it gets in, the default HZ should go back up to 1000. 
> In that case why decrease it for exactly one patchlevel?
> 
> As an app programmer, it'd be nice not to have to support 2.6.13 
> differently from 2.6.(x!=13).  For my app, busy waiting means a ~12% 
> load increase for 2.6.13 compared to (probably) all other 2.6 kernel 
> versions.  That's certainly violating the principle of least surprise. 
> Up to now, it was easy enough to tell people "upgrade from 2.4.x and 
> it'll work better".  Now it gets more complicated.

BTW I think many architectures have HZ=100 even in 2.6, so it is not
as siple as "go 2.6"...
								Pavel

-- 
teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/