Kernel timers

[Callum Lerwick]

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? :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060616/b608fbb2/attachment.sig>