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: <1253401950.7587.7.camel@ben-desktop>
Date:	Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:12:29 +1000
From:	Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tickless and HZ=1000 throughput advantage?

On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 18:50 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:

> Agreed. Do you think there is still a small case for moving to HZ=1000
> (given it's effectively free) in situations like:

Sure HZ=1000 gives you more accurate sleeps, that's kind of the point,
but since when has it been "effectively free"?
http://lwn.net/Articles/331607/

	--Ben.

--
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/