lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: NMI watchdog + NOHZ question
From
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:15:55 +0200

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:08:11AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
>> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:03:15 +0200
>>
>> >> I'm not exactly sure what to do about this.
>> >
>> > Ack the timer interrupt earlier (and also give it a high priority?)
>>
>> It has a higher priority, but all interrupts get re-enabled right
>> before we process software interrupts. So the flood of qla2xxx
>> interrupts can come in before we can run the timer softirq and
>> thus schedule the next timer interrupt.
>
> Ah you have a one shot timer and it gets rescheduled in the softirq?
> If yes why not in doing that directly in the hardirq handler?

Then what's the point of the generic timer code supporting one-shot
clock sources? :-)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-24 09:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans