Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:36:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Josef Karthauser <joe@FreeBSD.org>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_timeout.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209161234200.96232-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <84439.1032204014@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > I have wondered if periodic events should be handled differently, > or at least separately from one-shots, but that is also just an > idea. > > I think what we need more than anything, is somebody gathering more > hard data and analyzing more... The original idea of softclock was to try and have the running of timeouts asynchronously fromt he hardware clock, and teh hardware clock could actually fire during softclock.. However I think that now that we have kernel threads there is a good case that can be made for running such events in a high priority thread and limiting the softclock to scheduling it if there is something to do. (and maybe ticking over a pointer or two) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0209161234200.96232-100000>