Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932276AbVJQUbz (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:31:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932266AbVJQUbz (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:31:55 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:4003 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932279AbVJQUby (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:31:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:31:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Ingo Molnar cc: Tim Bird , Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, george@mvista.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, paulmck@us.ibm.com, hch@infradead.org, oleg@tv-sign.ru Subject: Re: [PATCH] ktimers subsystem 2.6.14-rc2-kt5 In-Reply-To: <20051017201330.GB8590@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <4353F936.3090406@am.sony.com> <20051017201330.GB8590@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 829 Lines: 27 Hi, On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > why you insist on ktimers being 'process timers'? Because they are optimized for process usage. OTOH kernel usage is more than just "timeouts". > so to answer your question: it is totally possible for a watchdog > mechanism to use ktimers. In fact it would be desirable from a > robustness POV too: "possible" and "desirable" is still different from "preferable", as they involve a higher cost. > e.g. we dont want a watchdog from being > overload-able via too many timeouts in the timer wheel ... Please explain. bye, Roman - 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/