From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:49:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:49:28 -0400 Received: from [202.54.26.202] ([202.54.26.202]:8070 "EHLO hindon.hss.co.in") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:49:14 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: HSS From: npunmia@hss.hns.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <65256A29.003F97A4.00@sandesh.hss.hns.com> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:15:53 +0530 Subject: 1.6666.... ms interrupts needed!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi. We are simulating air interface of GPRS on LAN. A TDMA(time division multiple access) frame duration is 40ms. Each TDMA frame consists of 24 timeslots. Each timeslot is of 40/24 ms (i.e 1.66666.......ms) . To know what current timeslot it is, we need a timer interrupt after every 1.6666... ms . Since we are implementing this on LAN, minor jitters once in a while can be tolerated (say 0.2 ms more or less once a while would be OK). As of now, we are modifying the HZ value in param.h to 600. This gives us a CPU tick of 1.6666.... ms. (i.e 1/600sec). I want to know if it would affect the perfomance of the CPU. Is there a better way to achieve the granularity of 1.666...ms . Would the UTIME patch be a better way from performance or any other point of view than this method? With Regards, Niraj Punmia