"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> From: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:54:16 -0700
>
> Is the only network issue? Is it possible that the network code
> uses bh_locking to protect against timers? Moveing timers to
> softirqs would invalidate this sort of protection. Is this an
> issue?
>
> It is the whole issue. We have to stop all timers while we run the
> non-SMP safe protocol code.
Thanks. I think this can be done much the same way it is now. I will modify the patch accordingly.
At the same time, I must say that stoping the timers is, IMNSHO, NOT a good thing for the kernel. It can cause unexpected timer latencies which can impact most any task on the system. (But you already knew this :) I understand that it is not seldom used, but still...
-- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml - 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 - 22:00:24 EST