Semperon processors

[Harald Hoyer]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> the theory seems to be that HZ=1000 gives a better interactive response.
> (you can measure a lot of things better with a 1ms sample period than
> with a 10ms sample period). Another reason is that with HZ=1000
> userspace can sleep more accurate intervals, which is especially helpful
> for video playback (if the least you can sleep is 20ms, doing 60Hz
> playback sucks, but if you can do 2ms in 1ms increments you get a lot
> better)
> 
> I'm not so convinced either way to be honest; for a while I had HZ=100
> patched into the kernel, but people complained so I set it back to 1000
> way back. Now that I have a laptop with powersaving I think I'll build
> myself a kernel with HZ=100 again.
> 
> 

I never understood the kernel timer concept, why not build a wakeup list and 
sleep exactly the time to the next event??