Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:45:54 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: No 100 HZ timer ! |
| |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 08:07:04AM -0400, Mark Salisbury wrote: > which kind of U/K accaounting are you referring to? > > are you referring to global changes in world time? are you referring to time > used by a process?
The later.
> > I think the reduction of clock interrupts by a factor of 10 would buy us some > performance margin that could be traded for a slightly more complex handler.
It depends on your workload if you can trade that in. e.g. when a few hundred TCP sockets are active a lot of timer ticks will run some timer handler. Also generally the kernel has quite a lot of timers. There is some reduction on a idle system. That is no doubt useful for VM/UML/VMware where you can have idle sessions hanging around, but otherwise it's not very interesting to optimize idle systems (except maybe for power saving purposes)
-Andi - 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/
| |