Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 May 2013 12:35:30 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 4/4] timer: Migrate running timer |
| |
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24 April 2013 16:52, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 9 April 2013 20:22, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > >> [Steven replied to a personal Ping!!, including everybody again] > >> > >> On 9 April 2013 19:25, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 14:05 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>>> Ping!! > >>>> > >>> > >>> Remind me again. What problem are you trying to solve? > >> > >> I was trying to migrate a running timer which arms itself, so that we don't > >> keep a cpu busy just for servicing this timer.
Which mechanism is migrating the timer away?
> >>>> On 20 March 2013 20:43, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > Hi Steven/Thomas, > >>>> > > >>>> > I came back to this patch after completing some other stuff and posting > >>>> > wq part of this patchset separately. > >>>> > > >>>> > I got your point and understand how this would fail. > >>>> > > >>>> > @Thomas: I need your opinion first. Do you like this concept of migrating > >>>> > running timer or not? Or you see some basic problem with this concept?
I have no objections to the functionality per se, but the proposed solution is not going to fly.
Aside of bloating the data structure you're changing the semantics of __mod_timer(). No __mod_timer() caller can deal with -EBUSY. So you'd break the world and some more.
Here is a list of questions:
- Which mechanism migrates timers?
- How is that mechanism triggered?
- How does that deal with CPU bound timers?
Thanks,
tglx
| |