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 netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
