[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <493BB1EB.5000004@hartkopp.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:22:19 +0100
From: Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@...tkopp.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] hrtimer: removing all ur callback modes
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 12:43 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is an attempt at removing some of the hrtimer complexity by
>> reducing the number of callback modes to 1.
>>
>> This means that all hrtimer callback functions will be ran from HARD-irq
>> context.
>>
>> I went through all the 30 odd hrtimer callback functions in the kernel
>> and saw only one that I'm not quite sure of, which is the one in
>> net/can/bcm.c - hence I'm CC-ing the folks responsible for that code.
>>
Thanks Peter.
Indeed i assumed my hrtimer callbacks to run in soft-irq. I tried the
can-bcm protocol with Ingos current linux-2.6-sched-devel.git including
your patches and i did not see any issues so far. And i do not expect
any (recursion) problems with hrtimer_forward() in my code either.
But i'm not that familiar with the timer context's stuff, that i would
like guaranty that the functions i use in bcm_send_user() and in
bcm_can_tx() are always safe to be used in hard-irq context.
It would be nice, if you could give me some support by double checking
the correctness of the hard-irq context in the given functions.
Best regards,
Oliver
--
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