> Ok, I just measured it, and it is more than I expected. The code is
> attached at the end. (You can use it for measuring other interrupt
> Extrapolating to 1024Hz, expect 1.4566% time to go servicing the timer
> interrupts.
>
> Quite how this translates to "reasonable 486+ its definitely a non
> issue" I can't see. Maybe 486s are faster than Pentium IIs?
what i would be interested in seeing is: the time it takes to
run a cpu bound app (eg raytracing am image) with HZ=100 and HZ=1024.
That would give a more realistic approximation of the overhead that
increasing HZ adds.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/