lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sky2: Use deferrable timer for watchdog


On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Parag Warudkar wrote:

> On Dec 20, 2007 2:22 PM, Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> wrote:
>> ok, that's just bad and if there's no user-defineable limit to the deferral I
>> definately don't like this change.
>>
>> Can I safely assume that any irq will cause all deferred timers to run?
>
> I think even other causes for wakeup like process related ones will
> cause the CPU to go busy and run the timers.
> This, coupled with the fact that no one is yet able to reach 0 wakeups
> per second makes it pretty unlikely that deferrable timers will be
> deferred indefinitely.
>
>>
>> If this is the case then for e1000 this patch is still OK since the watchdog needs
>> to run (1) after a link up/down interrupt or (2) to update statistics. Those
>> statistics won't increase if there is no traffic of course...
>>
>
> I think it is reasonable for Network driver watchdogs to use a
> deferrable timer - if the machine is 100% IDLE there is no one needing
> the network to be up.

Please note tha being connected to a network does not only mean to send
but also to receive.

Best regards,

Krzysztof Oledzki


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-20 21:21    [W:0.065 / U:9.924 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site