Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:57:27 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: tcp_isn_tick() / dummynet() callout madness ? Message-ID: <85988.1107158247@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:49:43 MST." <41FDD507.2040409@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <41FDD507.2040409@samsco.org>, Scott Long writes: >Taskqueues really are very non-deterministic and a poor choice for >periodic events. They really are only suitable for events that are >uncommon and don't require any sense whatsoever of urgency. While the >callout API doesn't have any real-time guarantees, there is an >assumption that assigned callouts will be generated with a reasonable >amount of accuracy and consistency, and not be held up by a task that >has an indefinite run time. Either a new dedicated kthread-based task >needs to be created for what you propose, or the simplier approach can >be taken of just deferring callouts that fail the trylock test to the >end of the list. Either of those would work for me. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?85988.1107158247>