| |||||||||||||
One pointer?One pointer?Posted Mar 30, 2007 21:10 UTC (Fri) by venkip (subscriber, #37888)In reply to: One pointer? by GreyWizard Parent article: Deferrable timers
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.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||