On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 06:24:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > @@ -749,6 +749,7 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long
> > expires,
> >
> > base = lock_timer_base(timer, );
> >
> > + (void)catchup_timer_jiffies(base);
>
> Agreed,
On 01/14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> @@ -749,6 +749,7 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long
> expires,
>
> base = lock_timer_base(timer, );
>
> + (void)catchup_timer_jiffies(base);
Agreed, but perhaps it would be better to do this before
all_timers++ in
On 01/14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
@@ -749,6 +749,7 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long
expires,
base = lock_timer_base(timer, flags);
+ (void)catchup_timer_jiffies(base);
Agreed, but perhaps it would be better to do this before
all_timers++ in
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 06:24:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 01/14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
@@ -749,6 +749,7 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long
expires,
base = lock_timer_base(timer, flags);
+ (void)catchup_timer_jiffies(base);
Agreed, but perhaps
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
The __run_timers() function currently steps through the list one jiffy at
a time in order to update the timer wheel. However, if the timer wheel
is empty, no adjustment is needed other than updating ->timer_jiffies.
Therefore, just before we add a timer to an empty
From: Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
The __run_timers() function currently steps through the list one jiffy at
a time in order to update the timer wheel. However, if the timer wheel
is empty, no adjustment is needed other than updating -timer_jiffies.
Therefore, just before we add a
6 matches
Mail list logo