On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:06:51PM -0400, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > I'd like to improve the fairness of the scheduler, with the goal of > mitigating userland starvations. For that the kernel needs to have > a better understanding of the amount of executed time per task. > > The smallest interval currently usable on all our architectures for > such accounting is a tick. With the current HZ value of 100, this > smallest interval is 10ms. I'd like to bump this value to 1000. > > The diff below intentionally bump other `hz' value to keep current > ratios. We certainly want to call schedclock(), or a similar time > accounting function, at a higher frequency than 16 Hz. However this > will be part of a later diff. > > I'd be really interested in test reports. mlarkin@ raised a good > question: is your battery lifetime shorter with this diff? > > Comments, oks? >
Slightly off-topic, but FYI since around ~2003 I run my everyday desktop/music machines (and various laptops) with HZ=1024. These were first i386's and now mostly amd64's (this is needed by my MIDI stuff). Battery lifetime doesn't seem affected. This didn't cause any problems, despite the fact that 1024 is multiple of the rtc tick rate, which in theory would cause aliasing. my 2 cents.
