lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Today Linus redesigns the networking driver interface (was Re: tulip driver in ...)
    On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:

    >Andrea Arcangeli writes:
    >> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:
    >>
    >> >BTW: if you're idling, that doesn't mean that BH's are called before
    >> >the next timer tick. AFAIK do_bottom_half() is only called on return
    >> >from syscall/interrupt and when rescheduling.
    >> >Waiting for the next timer tick would be horrible for latency,
    >> >though.
    >>
    >> If you queue the handler in the timer_bh OK, you are sure that the
    >> bh will be marked (in the worst case after 1/HZ sec). All other bh
    >> has not timeout so if you don' t mark it and there are not other
    >> code that mark it _incidentally_ the bh handler will never run. This
    >> is what I understand from the code.
    >
    >My point is that 1/HZ is a *long* time. 10 ms for packet processing is
    >awful.

    We _was_ talking about no timeout for a bh hander (Linus' s email) -> so
    we was talking about bh handers not queued in the timer_bh (what I tried
    to say in my last email) -> so the point of the last 2/3 email is sure not
    the frequency of the timer interrupt.

    And btw you are the one worried by sheduling latency so you really don' t
    want an high HZ.

    Andrea[s] Arcangeli


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.023 / U:0.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site