Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:31:28 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ktimers subsystem 2.6.14-rc2-kt5 |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> why you insist on ktimers being 'process timers'?
Because they are optimized for process usage. OTOH kernel usage is more than just "timeouts".
> so to answer your question: it is totally possible for a watchdog > mechanism to use ktimers. In fact it would be desirable from a > robustness POV too:
"possible" and "desirable" is still different from "preferable", as they involve a higher cost.
> e.g. we dont want a watchdog from being > overload-able via too many timeouts in the timer wheel ...
Please explain.
bye, Roman - 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/
| |