[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712202115320.5453@bizon.gios.gov.pl>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:17:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Krzysztof Oledzki <olel@....pl>
To: Parag Warudkar <parag.warudkar@...il.com>
cc: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sky2: Use deferrable timer for watchdog
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 2:22 PM, Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> wrote:
>> ok, that's just bad and if there's no user-defineable limit to the deferral I
>> definately don't like this change.
>>
>> Can I safely assume that any irq will cause all deferred timers to run?
>
> I think even other causes for wakeup like process related ones will
> cause the CPU to go busy and run the timers.
> This, coupled with the fact that no one is yet able to reach 0 wakeups
> per second makes it pretty unlikely that deferrable timers will be
> deferred indefinitely.
>
>>
>> If this is the case then for e1000 this patch is still OK since the watchdog needs
>> to run (1) after a link up/down interrupt or (2) to update statistics. Those
>> statistics won't increase if there is no traffic of course...
>>
>
> I think it is reasonable for Network driver watchdogs to use a
> deferrable timer - if the machine is 100% IDLE there is no one needing
> the network to be up.
Please note tha being connected to a network does not only mean to send
but also to receive.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Oledzki
--
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