| |||||||||||||
One pointer?One pointer?Posted Mar 29, 2007 19:49 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026)In reply to: Mask bits in pointers by ldo Parent article: Deferrable timers
Why not keep a single, system-wide pointer to the next non-deferable timer? This would have to be maintained each time such a timer fires but the cost might be comparable to all the masking and the resulting code might be easier to understand and maintain.
(Log in to post comments)
One pointer? Posted Mar 30, 2007 21:10 UTC (Fri) by venkip (subscriber, #37888) [Link]
The current timer infrastructure and the changes done is for per CPU timers. That is each CPU looks at all the timers scheduled on it independently. So, such a pointer has to be atleast per CPU. Cost of such a pointer is that we will have to go through timer wheel to find next non-deferrable timer and more importantly, we have to have different set of interfaces for these deferrable and non-deferrable or have extra space in timer structure to indicate the nature of timer so that this pointer can be updated correctly when one non-deferrable tiemr expires.
|
|||||||||||||