[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Ingo's smptimers patch experiment
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 06:27:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <> you wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > I ported your smptimers patch to 2.5.3 and experimented with
> > it a little bit. Basically I am curious about why we
> > we need to call run_all_timers() (which runs timers for all
> > CPUs) through the timer bh if locking fails in run_local_timers().
> Some driver do ugly things with TIMER_BH, and Ingo's 2.4 patched
> tried to stayed source compatible with 2.4 drivers.
> For 2.5 I'd really like to see TIMER_BH (all BH's in fact) to gone.

I can see that net driver relies on being able to disable all timers
by doing in net/core/dev.c -


But this doesn't completely disable timers in Ingo's patch
since timers can also be fired through run_local_timers() if
locking succeeds, no TIMER_BH in that case.

There are only a few places where TIMER_BH is used. I will see if
I can make another smptimers patch that gets rid of them.

Dipankar Sarma <>
Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.704 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site