On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Parag Warudkar wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 2:22 PM, Kok, Auke <[email protected]> wrote:
ok, that's just bad and if there's no user-defineable limit to the deferral I
definately don't like this change.
Can I safely assume that any irq will cause all deferred timers to run?
I think even other causes for wakeup like process related ones will
cause the CPU to go busy and run the timers.
This, coupled with the fact that no one is yet able to reach 0 wakeups
per second makes it pretty unlikely that deferrable timers will be
deferred indefinitely.
If this is the case then for e1000 this patch is still OK since the watchdog needs
to run (1) after a link up/down interrupt or (2) to update statistics. Those
statistics won't increase if there is no traffic of course...
I think it is reasonable for Network driver watchdogs to use a
deferrable timer - if the machine is 100% IDLE there is no one needing
the network to be up.
Please note tha being connected to a network does not only mean to send
but also to receive.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Oledzki
--
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]
