[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071220.152856.39725559.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:28:56 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dada1@...mosbay.com
Cc: shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, parag.warudkar@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: neighbor timer power saving
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:23:43 +0100
> We are going to convert 99% timers to deferrable.
>
> Maybe the right move should be to have the reverse attribute, to
> mark a timer as non deferrable...
I think we are still in a learning process about what
exactly causes a timer to be converted to deferrable
or not.
It may sound crazy but flipping the switch on %99 of
our kernel timers is not the nicest way to figure it
out :-)
Therefore it might still make sense to keep the deferrable
marker for now, so that we can gradually convert the tree
checking easy case carefully. This way the breakage is
containted very well.
Then once we have almost all of the timers verified, we
can reverse the meaning and mark the timers that remain
as non-deferrable and kill the deferrable marker.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists