On Dec 20, 2007 12:51 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Quit top-posting!
>
> If this is the case then the whole usage of round_jiffies() is bogus. All users of round_jiffies()
> should just be converted to deferrable?? I am a bit concerned that if deferrable gets used everywhere
> then a strange situation would occur where all timers were waiting for some other timer to finally
> happen, kind of a wierd timelock situation. Like the old chip/dale cartoon:
> "you first, no you first, after you mister chip, no after you mister dale,..."
>
Haha - I thought about this too. I think there should be mechanism
where the machine does not idle infinitely even if there are no
non-deferrable timers. Something like an affordable QoS for non
deferrable timers - the kernel wakes up after that interval and runs
all deferrable timers even if nothing non-deferrable is set to run.
So we still get advantage of not having to wake individually for each
timer and the non-deferrable timers do get all run in reasonable
amount of time.
Who knows Thomas/Ingo already built in something of that nature or effect?!
Parag
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
