[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070530105936.6c988da5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:59:36 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Make net watchdog timers 1 sec jiffy aligned
On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:01:13 -0700
Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:
> round_jiffies for net dev watchdog timer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.22-rc-mm/net/sched/sch_generic.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.22-rc-mm.orig/net/sched/sch_generic.c 2007-05-24 11:16:03.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc-mm/net/sched/sch_generic.c 2007-05-25 15:10:02.000000000 -0700
> @@ -224,7 +224,8 @@
> if (dev->tx_timeout) {
> if (dev->watchdog_timeo <= 0)
> dev->watchdog_timeo = 5*HZ;
> - if (!mod_timer(&dev->watchdog_timer, jiffies + dev->watchdog_timeo))
> + if (!mod_timer(&dev->watchdog_timer,
> + round_jiffies(jiffies + dev->watchdog_timeo)))
> dev_hold(dev);
> }
> }
Please cc netdev on net patches.
Again, I worry that if people set the watchdog timeout to, say, 0.1 seconds
then they will get one second, which is grossly different.
And if they were to set it to 1.5 seconds, they'd get 2.0 which is pretty
significant, too.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists