lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: dynamic-hz
Hi!

> >The overhead is a single l1 cacheline in the paths manipulating HZ
> >(rather than having an immediate value hardcoded in the asm, it reads it
> >from a memory location not in the icache). Plus there are some
> >conversion routines in the USER_HZ usages. It's not a measurable
> >difference.
>
> Just being devils advocate here...
>
> I had variable Hz in my tree for a while and found there was one
> solitary purpose to setting Hz to 100; to silence cheap capacitors.
>
> The rest of my users that were setting Hz to 100 for so-called
> performance gains were doing so under the false impression that cpu
> usage was lower simply because of the woefully inaccurate cpu usage
> calcuation at 100Hz.
>
> The performance benefit, if any, is often lost in noise during
> benchmarks and when there, is less than 1%. So I was wondering if you
> had some specific advantage in mind for this patch? Is there some
> arch-specific advantage? I can certainly envision disadvantages to lower Hz.

Actually, I measured about 1W power savings with HZ=100. That's about
as much as spindown of disk saves...
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:4.062 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site