From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 07:55:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 07:54:16 -0400 Received: from alfik.ms.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.19.71]:11012 "EHLO alfik.ms.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 07:53:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 11:57:37 +0000 From: Pavel Machek To: george anzinger Cc: Jamie Lokier , high-res-timers-discourse@lists.sourceforge.net, Alan Cox , Mikulas Patocka , David Schleef , Mark Salisbury , Jeff Dike , schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: No 100 HZ timer ! Message-ID: <20010811115737.B35@toy.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20010410193521.A21133@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <20010410202416.A21512@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <3AD35EFB.40ED7810@mvista.com> <3B675682.3CE51A3D@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3B675682.3CE51A3D@mvista.com>; from george@mvista.com on Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 06:08:18PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > The testing I have done seems to indicate a lower overhead on a lightly > loaded system, about the same overhead with some load, and much more > overhead with a heavy load. To me this seems like the wrong thing to > do. We would like as nearly a flat overhead to load curve as we can get Why? Higher overhead is a price for better precision timers. If you rounded all times in "tickless" mode, you'd get about same overhead, right? Pavel -- Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt, details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html.