[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 00/21] Highres / dynticks drop in replacement for 2.6.19-rc5-mm1

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Andrew,
> this is a drop in replacement for the following patches in 2.6.19-rc5-mm1:
> hrtimers-state-tracking.patch
> up to
> acpi-verify-lapic-timer-fix.patch

There is still the gtod-exponential-update_wall_time patch before that, I
explained previously why it's wrong and how to fix this properly. Andrew,
please drop this one.

Something I also wanted to mention about the OLS paper: It's an
interesting read and answers a few question, but not all. It concentrates
very much on the past (previous and current implementations), what I'm
missing are more details on how it can be used in the future. IMO it's
very important information regarding merging, i.e. how can this be applied
to our various architectures. This is were have my doubts and more
questions about it later.

The paper stresses the point that it provides a generic infrastructure,
but as such it also brings some amazing complexities. Dedicated
implementations often have the advantage to be simpler and faster (I'm not
saying that current ones are). How does your implementation keep the
source and runtime complexities under control? Such generic frameworks
have the tendency to grow - new requirements have to be met and thus
complexity further increases.

bye, Roman
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: 2006-11-23 23:29    [W:0.221 / U:11.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site