On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 14:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 02:32 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 23:33 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > Tickless operation. We need to abandon the timer tick. > > > > Interesting, what would this mean for low latency operation? > > It would mean that the resistance to switching to 1000HZ gets massively > reduced. > > Basically, the current implementation stops the timer tick when the > machine is _idle_. This means that we're not waking the machine up every > 1ms and wasting power, and that was the main reason we didn't want > HZ=1000 in the past. Perfect! I know such patches have been floating around for years now, (And apparently some platforms have been using them already for a while) What's the current holdup? :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
