* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Another alternative would be for systems with C3 to fall-back to a > > periodic tick scheme that we have today. From a power point of view, > > HZ=100 would be only a little bit worse than Windows HZ=64. > > However, FC6 seems to have marched off an built with > > HZ=1000 -- so we'd have some challenges with static HZ too... > > With dyntick enabled kernels you get ~ HZ=37 as the worst case with > PIT, while we go down to ~4HZ with HPET / apic timer (as long as it > works) s/worst case/best case the lower we can make the timer irq rate on an idle system, the better. HPET allows us to go from 37 Hz down to 4 Hz. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
