From owner-cvs-all  Mon Sep 16 12:40:36 2002
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A7C5337B400; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E517543E4A; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8])
          by sccrmhc02.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020916194034.VVDE23613.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>;
          Mon, 16 Sep 2002 19:40:34 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA96357;
	Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
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 
In-Reply-To: <84439.1032204014@critter.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209161234200.96232-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <cvs-all.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20cvs-all>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20cvs-all>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



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