From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 22 21:47:46 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5443B16A4CE; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:47:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fw.farid-hajji.net (fw.farid-hajji.net [213.146.115.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0DA43D41; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:47:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from epia2.farid-hajji.net (unknown [192.168.254.11]) by fw.farid-hajji.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0167C4BAC9; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:44:00 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:48:21 +0100 From: cpghost@cordula.ws To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20050222214821.GA66879@epia2.farid-hajji.net> References: <20050222193858.1C18C5D07@ptavv.es.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: Emanuel Strobl cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: HZ=1000 on slow CPUs considered harmful? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:47:46 -0000 On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:56:03PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > In 6-CURRENT, HZ is 1000 for amd64, i386, and ia64, but 100 for other > platforms (i.e., ppc, arm, and alpha). I'm not opposed to merging the HZ > change to RELENG_5 at some point, but given that occasional nits, such as > the TCP nit, are turning up, I think it's worth waiting until after 5.4. Wouldn't that be a problem for slow CPUs like VIA C3 (EPIA) or GEODE (Soekris)? For fast CPUs, it's not that much overhead, but for slow CPUs? Can HZ remain user-configurable? > Robert N M Watson Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/