On Mon, 13 May 2013, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24 April 2013 16:52, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 9 April 2013 20:22, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> [Steven replied to a personal Ping!!, including everybody again]
> >>
> >> On 9 April 2013 19:25, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
