Re: Dynamic tick for 2.6.14 - what's the plan?

Lee Revell wrote:

The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.

Anyone care to give a status report?  Con, do you feel that the last
version you posted is ready to go in?

Last time I got interested in this, the management of the event queues was still a fairly major performance hit.

Has this overhead been brought down to reasonable levels?

Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Dynamic tick for 2.6.14 - what's the plan?
    • From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
  • Re: Dynamic tick for 2.6.14 - what's the plan?
    • From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Dynamic tick for 2.6.14 - what's the plan?
    • From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: list.h copyright owner
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] drivers/net/s2io.h - lvalue fix
• Previous by thread: Dynamic tick for 2.6.14 - what's the plan?
• Next by thread: Re: Dynamic tick for 2.6.14 - what's the plan?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]