Re: Preparing 2.6.16-7, Call for discussion on SECCOMP and HZ_250

[Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>]

maximilian attems wrote:
[snip]
> > - HZ_250 instead of HZ_1000: If I remember correctly, we kept HZ_1000 
> >   because it was the prior default. IMHO, we should follow upstream and 
> >   change the default to HZ_250 too. 
> > 
> >   A short pro/cons is here: http://kerneltrap.org/node/5411
> > 
> >   Considering we plan to use the smp-alternatives patches for both amd64
> >   and i386, at least here HZ_250 makes sense. For the other arches and
> >   flavours, either HZ_100 for smp and HZ_1000 for up/desktop flavours
> >   could make sense, or just HZ_250 too for the sake of simplicity.
> > 
> >   There will for sure be users requesting to revert this change, similar
> >   to PREEMPT, so I would like to have a concensus in the team regarding
> >   this option.
> 
> i would stick with HZ_250 everywhere.
> the upstream change seems not contested since.

Agreed.


Thiemo