HZ=1000 on slow CPUs considered harmful?

[John Pettitt]

cpghost at cordula.ws wrote:

>On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:56:03PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote:
>  
>
>>In 6-CURRENT, HZ is 1000 for amd64, i386, and ia64, but 100 for other
>>platforms (i.e., ppc, arm, and alpha).  I'm not opposed to merging the HZ
>>change to RELENG_5 at some point, but given that occasional nits, such as
>>the TCP nit, are turning up, I think it's worth waiting until after 5.4.
>>    
>>
>
>Wouldn't that be a problem for slow CPUs like VIA C3 (EPIA) or GEODE
>(Soekris)? For fast CPUs, it's not that much overhead, but for slow
>CPUs?
>
>Can HZ remain user-configurable?
> 
>  
>
HZ=1000 has causes a lot of problems for Linux boxes where the system no
longer keeps accurate time because of lost clock interrupts under high
load (video playback seem to be the favorite) - see the ntp lists for
extensive discussion.    Is this change really worth the hassle?

John