On Mon, 13 May 2013, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 24 April 2013 16:52, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
On 9 April 2013 20:22, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
[Steven replied to a personal Ping!!, including everybody again]
On 9 April 2013 19:25, Steven Rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 14:05 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Ping!!
Remind me again. What problem are you trying to solve?
I was trying to migrate a running timer which arms itself, so that we don't keep a cpu busy just for servicing this timer.
Which mechanism is migrating the timer away?
On 20 March 2013 20:43, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Steven/Thomas,
I came back to this patch after completing some other stuff and posting wq part of this patchset separately.
I got your point and understand how this would fail.
@Thomas: I need your opinion first. Do you like this concept of migrating running timer or not? Or you see some basic problem with this concept?
I have no objections to the functionality per se, but the proposed solution is not going to fly.
Aside of bloating the data structure you're changing the semantics of __mod_timer(). No __mod_timer() caller can deal with -EBUSY. So you'd break the world and some more.
Here is a list of questions:
- Which mechanism migrates timers?
- How is that mechanism triggered?
- How does that deal with CPU bound timers?
Thanks,
tglx