![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* George Anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote: > > yeah, and that's an assumption that simplifies things on SMP > > significantly. PIT on SMP systems for HRT is so gross that it's not > > funny. If anyone wants to revive that notion, please do a separate > > patch and make the case convincing enough ... > > Lets not talk about PIT, but, a lot of SMP platforms do NOT have per > cpu timers. For those, it would seem having per cpu lists to handle > the timer is not really reasonable. frankly, such systems are rare, and are an afterthought at most. Think about it: 8 CPUs and only one hres timer source? It cannot work nor scale well. i agree that they might eventually be handled (although i think we shouldnt bother, all sane SMP designs have per-CPU timers), but we definite wont design for them. What such an architecture has to do is to provide the proper do_hr_timer_int() and arch_hrtimer_reprogram() semantics, via locking around that timer source (naturally), and via cross-CPU calls - as if they were per-CPU timers. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-10-04 03:53 [W:0.400 / U:0.260 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||