Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?

[Ben Nizette]

On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 18:50 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:

> Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
> (given it's effectively free) in situations like:

Sure HZ=1000 gives you more accurate sleeps, that's kind of the point,
but since when has it been "effectively free"?
http://lwn.net/Articles/331607/

	--Ben.

--
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/