[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090823.185456.25552109.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]: pkt_sched: Convert CBQ to tasklet_hrtimer.
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:22:48 +0200 (CEST)
> B1;2005;0cOn Sat, 22 Aug 2009, David Miller wrote:
>> I'm not convinced either way, the code logic here has been like
>> this since at least 2.2.x, where it reads:
>>
>> if (!cl->delayed) {
>> unsigned long sched = jiffies;
>> ...
>> if (delay > 0) {
>> sched += PSCHED_US2JIFFIE(delay) + cl->penalty;
>> ...
>> if (del_timer(&q->delay_timer) &&
>> (long)(q->delay_timer.expires - sched) > 0)
>> q->delay_timer.expires = sched;
>> add_timer(&q->delay_timer);
>
> That does not make more sense than the hrtimer version :)
Sure it does, at least to me.
It says: When 'delay > 0', either the timer fires immediately
('jiffies') or at some point in the future ('jiffies + delay +
penalty' or existing expiration, whichever is sooner).
The intention of the code seems very clear.
>> So please review my patch in the context of a straight conversion to
>> tasklet_hrtimer, and let's deal with the timer offset logic here
>> seperately (and in -next, not 2.6.31-rcX)
>
> The straight conversion looks fine. Add my Acked-by.
Thanks.
--
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