From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756976AbZEGOYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 10:24:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754060AbZEGOYj (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 10:24:39 -0400 Received: from smtp3.ultrahosting.com ([74.213.175.254]:42093 "EHLO smtp.ultrahosting.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751007AbZEGOYi (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 10:24:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:13:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@qirst.com To: Alok Kataria cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , "alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Reduce the default HZ value In-Reply-To: <1241560625.8665.17.camel@alok-dev1> Message-ID: References: <1241462661.412.8.camel@alok-dev1> <4A00ADDE.9000908@zytor.com> <1241560625.8665.17.camel@alok-dev1> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I think we need to reduce the general tick frequency to be as low as possible. With high resolution timers the tick frequency is just the frequency with which the timer interrupt disturbs a running application. Are there any benefits remaining from frequent timer interrupts? I would think that 60 HZ would be sufficient. It would be good if the kernel would be truly tickless. Scheduler events would be driven by the scheduling intervals and not the invokations of the scheduler softirq.