Re: No 100 HZ timer !

[Richard B. Johnson]

> george anzinger wrote:
> 
> > The testing I have done seems to indicate a lower overhead on a lightly
> > loaded system, about the same overhead with some load, and much more
> > overhead with a heavy load.  To me this seems like the wrong thing to
> 

Doesn't the "tick-less" system presume that somebody, somewhere, will
be sleeping sometime during the 1/HZ interval so that the scheduler
gets control?

If everybody's doing:

	for(;;)
          number_crunch();

And no I/O is pending, how does the jiffy count get bumped?

I think the "tick-less" system relies upon a side-effect of
interactive use that can't be relied upon for design criteria.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson

Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).

    I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be
    attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del
    was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any.