On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> b) The current API looks like it was designed primarly with one-shot
> timers in mind. Most timers events are multishot (because
> sleep_on_timeout is better for most one-shot applications [...]
sleep_on_timeout() uses a one-shot timer internally.
but for 2.4, the changing of the timer interface is out of question. My
main goal was to achieve good SMP scalability with the existing interface.
i do not agree with passing the timer address instead of the ->data field.
It's one more dereference to use, for no particular reason. If you want to
get at the timer structure you can still do it by embedding it into a
structure:
struct foo {
...
timer_t timer;
...
}
and ->data will point to &foo.
with the timerlist lock being per-CPU, basically all lock contention has
been eliminated. So it's not a problem anymore to drop/reaquire the lock,
it's not more than a nicely cached, CPU-local variable.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 21:00:39 EST