HZ in 2.6 on PPC32

Benjamin Herrenschmidt benh at kernel.crashing.org
Sun Aug 24 02:59:54 EST 2003

On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 18:03, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Why is this still defined to 100? I'm running at 1000 now, and it makes
> a huge difference for interactivity. Moreover, CONFIG_PREEMPT now makes
> things even better instead of worse. :)
> If the reason is the slow PPC32 CPUs still around, maybe make it a
> config option?

A config option would probably be a better idea, I doubt lots of embedded
or low end configs wants HZ at 1000... Regarding CONFIG_PREEMPT, it's
really weird that it "makes things worse" for you with HZ at 100. But
that may also be the 2.6-test scheduler suckyness...


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list