On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 06:27:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <20020206211925.A8720@in.ibm.com> you wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > I ported your smptimers patch to 2.5.3 and experimented with
> > it a little bit. Basically I am curious about why we
> > we need to call run_all_timers() (which runs timers for all
> > CPUs) through the timer bh if locking fails in run_local_timers().
>
> Some driver do ugly things with TIMER_BH, and Ingo's 2.4 patched
> tried to stayed source compatible with 2.4 drivers.
>
> For 2.5 I'd really like to see TIMER_BH (all BH's in fact) to gone.
I can see that net driver relies on being able to disable all timers
by doing in net/core/dev.c -
tasklet_disable(bh_task_vec+TIMER_BH);
But this doesn't completely disable timers in Ingo's patch
since timers can also be fired through run_local_timers() if
locking succeeds, no TIMER_BH in that case.
There are only a few places where TIMER_BH is used. I will see if
I can make another smptimers patch that gets rid of them.
Thanks
Dipankar
-- Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India. - 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 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:58 EST