Re: [patch 2/7] timer: Remove FIFO guarantee

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, George Spelvin wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > After thinking more about it, I'm even more sure that any code which
> > relies on the FIFO "guarantee" is broken today.
> 
> Indeed, I am completely convinced.  All I might request is a reassignment
> of blame in the commit message.

Will do. Thanks for spotting it!
 
> Thank you for your comments on my other blue-sky ideas, too.
> 
> I need to look into why we're using wheels, and what the point is.
> How much of an advantage do they have over an efficient priority queue
> like a pairing heap?

The only reason is performance. The wheel has O(1) insertion and
deletion time while heaps and trees usually have O(log(n)).

Timer wheel timers are usually timeouts and 99% of them are canceled
before expiry. Networking is probably the heaviest use case followed
by disk I/O.

Thanks,

	tglx




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/