Messages in this thread | | | From | Keith Owens <> | Subject | Re: Faster timers for Linux 2.1.22 | Date | Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:46:47 +1100 |
| |
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:54:26 +0000 (GMT), Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net> wrote: > Keith Owens wrote >> As for 'buffering', after disable_bh is called, the next interrupt of >> any kind including (AFAIK) the timer tick will run any outstanding >> bottom half code. This takes precedence over user driven code. It's a >> tradeoff, a more local lock and a slightly delayed bh against a global >> lock that hits every piece of code. > >Thats too expensive for networking and for other things. However what >Ingo suggested which is having an enable_bh() or variant that does run >pending bh handlers solves it
So to get back to the original suggestion. Is it worth associating timers with a specific bh instead of having all timers run under a global bh?
| |