On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 04:17:45PM -0700, george anzinger wrote:
> Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 11:07:32AM -0700, george anzinger wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I reasoned that the timers, unlike most other I/O, directly drive the system.
> > > For example, the time slice is counted down by the timer BH. By pushing the
> > > timer out to ksoftirqd, running at nice 19, you open the door to a compute
> > > bound task running over its time slice (admittedly this should be caught on
> > > the next interrupt).
> >
> > I have had some problems with timers delayed up to 0.06s in 2.4 kernels,
> > could that be this problem?
> >
> It could be. Depends on what was going on at the time.
I have generated high load to test how accurately my genrtc driver will
work - it turned out that timers added with add_timer occassionally
get delayed by several jiffies. Results were much worse on IO bound
load, especially IDE drives, CPU intensive userspace apps didn't appear
to matter.
Using schedule_task() to poll the event seems to work without any
problems.
> In most cases, however,
> the next interrupt should cause a call to softirq and thus run the timer list. This
> would seem to indicate at 20ms delay at most (first call busys softirq thru a 10ms tick
> followed by recovery at the next tick).
this was also my impression after looking at the lowlevel interrupt
handling so I am really puzzled.
Richard
-
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 : Sun Jun 23 2002 - 22:00:19 EST