b...@softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) writes: >> A tickless kernel wouldn't run callouts from the regular clock interrupt >> but would use a hires timer to issue interrupts at arbitrary times. >> The callout API could then be changed to either accept timespec values or >> just fake a much higher HZ value.
>Right. Not that I believe this have to be tied into tickless, but I >suspect it might be easier to do it if we go tickless. Well, "not using a regular clock interrupt" is what "tickless" means. >We really should be able to deal with shorter times, even if we have >ticks. That's a contradiction. "ticks" means that timed events are based on a regular clock interrupt. Of course you can speed up the ticks (e.g. Alpha uses HZ=1000), but that has other disadvantages. N.B. going tickless isn't difficult, it's just lots of work as it needs MD support on all platforms. -- -- Michael van Elst Internet: mlel...@serpens.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."