On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 10:22:19AM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> Even if you replace timemr_bh() with a tasklet, you still need
> to take the global_bh_lock to ensure that timers don't race with
> single-threaded BH processing in drivers. I wrote this patch [included]
> to get rid of timer_bh in Ingo's smptimers, but it acquires
> global_bh_lock as well as net_bh_lock, the latter to ensure
> that some older protocol code that expected serialization of
> NET_BH and timers work correctly (see deliver_to_old_ones()).
> They need to be cleaned up too.
> My patch of course was experimental to see what is needed to
> get rid of timer_bh. It needs some cleanup itself ;-)
It runs here. New profile (hopefully I'll get some fixed-up stuff like
oprofile, kernprof, & lockmeter to play with at some point):
14465232 total 114.2269
10694436 mod_timer 33420.1125
1089589 __global_cli 4005.8419
961598 timer_bh 1059.0286
453404 do_gettimeofday 3333.8529
440086 __wake_up 2340.8830
298729 schedule 268.6412
294945 default_idle 5672.0192
155762 do_softirq 708.0091
43256 tasklet_hi_action 220.6939
12724 system_call 289.1818
mod_timer is 75%, __global_cli() appears to be 7.5%, and timer_bh()
is 6.6%... I wonder what happened to the plot for lockless gettimeofday(),
esp as that accounts for 3.1% here...
It's still spinning with interrupts off for several minutes at a time.
Cheers,
Bill
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:25 EST