From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  1 07:59:59 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3F10937B401; Tue,  1 Apr 2003 07:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4412443FCB; Tue,  1 Apr 2003 07:59:58 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h31FxtSM036449;
	Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:59:56 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:54:04 MDT."
             <20030401095201.O1612@odysseus.silby.com> 
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:59:55 +0200
Message-ID: <36448.1049212795@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: "Expensive timeout(9) function..." 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 15:59:59 -0000

In message <20030401095201.O1612@odysseus.silby.com>, Mike Silbersack writes:
>
>
>On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your explanation!
>>
>> I hope this little thread will draw the attention of the
>> responsible or interested parties to the warnings ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Yar
>
>The _tick routines are not easy to fix, FWIW.  MII access functions are
>quite time consuming almost any way you look at it.

I'm not sure the _tick functions should even be called from a timeout().

In many ways it seems preferable to me to have then run sequentially
from a single thread, possibly via a task-queue.

-- 
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.