If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
you could still try 300 it has the advantage of being more fine grained than 100 and a lot less overhead than 1000.
It makes a difference when you're working on an audio project that has 50 tracks going at the same time. On 1000hz I can get my latency down further than I could on 300. I can mix on 300 but not record. I also haven't seen that much of a negative impact considering I mostly just use my system for browsing and writing papers when I'm not doing audio work.
context switch overhead. Reduced IO performance. A lot of other stuff.
Look at my other benchmarks above, especially on the RT kernel which is essentially an extreme version of cranking up the HZ - albeit a really useful one. Basically the tradeoff is that you get a much more responsive system at the cost of throughput. For my specific case it's worthwhile but I'd imagine for 99% of desktop users voluntary preemption and 300 works great. I can't really tell the difference on a server kernel with no preemption at 100hz on a good multicore processor anyway.