From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264446AbTLKIZg (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:25:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264478AbTLKIZg (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:25:36 -0500 Received: from [139.30.44.16] ([139.30.44.16]:53148 "EHLO gockel.physik3.uni-rostock.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264446AbTLKIZe (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:25:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:25:24 +0100 (CET) From: Tim Schmielau To: Jean-Marc Valin cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: Increasing HZ (patch for HZ > 1000) In-Reply-To: <1071126929.5149.24.camel@idefix.homelinux.org> Message-ID: References: <1071122742.5149.12.camel@idefix.homelinux.org> <1288980000.1071126438@[10.10.2.4]> <1071126929.5149.24.camel@idefix.homelinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Actually, my reasons may sound a little strange, but basically I'd be > fine with HZ=1000 if it wasn't for that annoying ~1 kHz sound when the > CPU is idle (probably bad capacitors). By increasing HZ to 10 kHz, the > sound is at a frequency where the ear is much less sensitive. Anyway, I > thought some people might be interested in high HZ for other (more > fundamental) reasons, so I posted the patch. =8-) I'd guess a tickless kernel might be what you actually want. See e.g. http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Tim