On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Patel, Vedang wrote: > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 12:29 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > This is simple to achieve for timers where the signal is directed to > > a thread, but it's way more complex for process wide signal delivery. > > > So, does this mean that we should be asking people not to use POSIX > timers until this is corrected? Well, we always recommended clock_nanosleep() to be used and to avoid signal based timers when ever possible. > Also, Is there a way to specify which ktimersoftd thread (essentially > selecting a particular CPU)to use while creating a timer? Currently, > the ktimersoftd thread corresponding to the thread on which the CPU is > running is being used by cyclictest. This would prevent the bounce > between ktimersoftd and cyclictest thread when both of them are on the > same CPU. Nope. This is even more complex than you describe it and no, we definitely don't want to think about this in the first place. 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
