[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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
Real time sched:
Preemption patch:
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 13:22    [W:0.066 / U:4.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site