Le vendredi 16 juin 2006 à 12:16 -0300, John DeDourek a écrit :
Callum Lerwick wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 14:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>Basically, the current implementation stops the timer tick
>>machine is _idle_. This means that we're not waking the machine up every
>>1ms and wasting power, and that was the main reason we didn't want
>>HZ=1000 in the past.
> Perfect! I know such patches have been floating around for years now,
> (And apparently some platforms have been using them already for a while)
> What's the current holdup? :)
My question to the development team is whether ntp clock conditioning
a consideration or not when evaluating changes to the kernel time keeping
I'd say 90% of the work is related to ntp alone. You can jump to the
linux kernel mailing list if you want more info. Without ntp the work
would already have been done.