Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:17:45 +0100 (CET) | From | Krzysztof Oledzki <> | 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@intel.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
| |