From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 2 06:17:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18715 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from terra.Sarnoff.COM (terra.sarnoff.com [130.33.11.203]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA18707 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 06:17:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rminnich@Sarnoff.COM) Received: (from rminnich@localhost) by terra.Sarnoff.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01134; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:17:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:17:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ron G. Minnich" X-Sender: rminnich@terra To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: timeout granularity (was: Re: Console driver...) In-Reply-To: <199807021127.NAA12406@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > polling if the test is successful. Sooner or later hopefully we > will move to large values of HZ anyways. good point. I've experimented with HZ of 10,000 on a 486-25. 10K was a bit large for this machine, but 2500 was no problem. What's the largest HZ anyone out there has used? I'd expect that 10K or 20K would not be a real problem. Anyone know? ron p.s. no, time did not run fast. I put pre-scaling in hardclock so all was well. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message