Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:17:45 -0700 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Replace timer_bh with tasklet |
| |
Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 11:07:32AM -0700, george anzinger wrote: > > > > > I reasoned that the timers, unlike most other I/O, directly drive the system. > > For example, the time slice is counted down by the timer BH. By pushing the > > timer out to ksoftirqd, running at nice 19, you open the door to a compute > > bound task running over its time slice (admittedly this should be caught on > > the next interrupt). > > I have had some problems with timers delayed up to 0.06s in 2.4 kernels, > could that be this problem? > It could be. Depends on what was going on at the time. In most cases, however, the next interrupt should cause a call to softirq and thus run the timer list. This would seem to indicate at 20ms delay at most (first call busys softirq thru a 10ms tick followed by recovery at the next tick). -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |