On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:36:49PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Not at all. These were chosen because they were the default 2.4 (100) and 2.5
> (1000) frequencies. The large difference in Hz was postulated to increase the
> in-kernel overhead and the amount of time spent tearing down and building up
> the cpu cache again. 2.4 running at 1000Hz shows poor performance at high
> (>4) loads whereas 2.5 doesn't seem to do this. I originally thought it was
> cache thrashing/trashing responsible. However since 2.5 performance is almost
> comparable at 100/1000 it seems to be that the pure interrupt overhead in 2.5
> is lower?
You could try profiling cache misses etc.
I blame count_active_tasks(). =)
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/