Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261239AbVA1Isu (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:48:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261238AbVA1Isu (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:48:50 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:63969 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261224AbVA1Irz (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:47:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:47:25 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: George Anzinger , LKML , Doug Niehaus , Benedikt Spranger Subject: Re: High resolution timers and BH processing on -RT Message-ID: <20050128084725.GB5004@elte.hu> References: <1106871192.21196.152.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <20050128044301.GD29751@elte.hu> <1106900411.21196.181.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <20050128082439.GA3984@elte.hu> <1106901013.21196.194.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1106901013.21196.194.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1394 Lines: 33 * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > or is it that we have a 'group' of normal timers expiring, which, if > > they happen to occur _just_ prior a HRT event will generate a larger > > delay? > > Yep. The timers expire at random times. So it's likely to have short > sequences of timer interrupts going off. This needs reprogramming of > the PIT and processing of the expired timers. i dont really like the static splitup of 'normal' vs. 'HRT' timers - there might in fact be separate priority requirements between HRT timers too. i think one possible solution would be to introduce some notion of 'timer priority', and to expire each timer priority level in a separate timer expiry thread. Priority 0 (lowest) would be expired in ksoftirqd, and there would be 3 separate threads for say priorities 1-3. Or something like this. Potentially exposed to user-space as well, via new APIs. Hm? To push this even further: in theory timers could inherit the priority of the task that starts them, and they would be expired in that priority order - but this probably needs a pretty clever (and most likely complex) data-structure ... Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/