lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Faster timers for Linux 2.1.22
Date
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?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.039 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site