linux-kernel - Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090919165501.65d77294@infradead.org>
Date:	Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:55:01 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:47:24 +0100
Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com> wrote:

> On tickless kernels, is the general consensus that for non-embedded
> systems, selecting HZ=1000 gives slightly more throughput in
> particular situations than HZ=100 or 250, due to finer timer
> intervals/granularity?

it's not about throughput. It's about latency for some things....
although now that select/poll and co use hrtimers it's not as critical
anymore.

the HZ timers aren't used much for anything time-critical nowadays.

-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/