Kernel timers

[David Woodhouse]

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.

-- 
dwmw2