Paul Durrant wrote:
On 4/25/07, Thomas De Schampheleire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

If I would use timeout only to start function A, and within function A do a new call to timeout in order to keep it running each period, that would the
bad thing to do, right? Since then I would leave a trail of unfinished
functions behind...


No. timeout() does not block until the background task is completed
(that would kind of defeat the point) so there's no unfinished
functions. Self re-scheduling timeouts are quite common. The tricky
part comes when you want to stop such a thing as you cannot hold a
lock over untimeout() which you also hold in your background function.

Does the following strategy then work?
In function A, call timeout with function B as argument
In function B, first schedule a taskq that will run A, then do the necessary
things that are needed

Is it correct that in this way, since the scheduling the new taskq is the first thing that is done, the actual time between invocations of the code is quasi constant, i.e. does not depend on how long the actual code within B
takes?


Given what I said above this is unecessarily complex. I believe it is
ok to schedule a task on a task from within a task handler, so you
should be able to use taskqs or timeout to achieve what you want but
using both is unnecessary.

timeout handlers have to adhere to interrupt service routine constraints. (I.e. they generally should be short lived, should avoid blocking, and can only use mutexes initialized with an appropriate iblock cookie. Note that while the code will _work_ if you don't adhere to these constraints ... due to the way timeout is implemented ... it isn't DDI compliant and isn't guaranteed to work in the future.)

Conversely, taskq's offer no reasonable clock-based scheduling mechanism. Using delay() inside a taskq thread will block DDI suspend/resume (and therefore also certain kinds of Dynamic Reconfiguration.)

The upshot is, for certain kinds of tasks, you really do need to use both taskq's and timeouts.

   -- Garrett

 Paul


_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code

Reply via email to