From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  1 08:53:58 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E8037B404
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 Apr 2003 08:53:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACB6843F93
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 Apr 2003 08:53:57 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: (qmail 67401 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 16:53:56 -0000
Received: from niwun.pair.com (HELO localhost) (209.68.2.70)
  by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 16:53:56 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.2.70
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:50:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <36448.1049212795@critter.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20030401104630.T1612@odysseus.silby.com>
References: <36448.1049212795@critter.freebsd.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: "Expensive timeout(9) function..."
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:53:59 -0000


On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> >The _tick routines are not easy to fix, FWIW.  MII access functions are
> >quite time consuming almost any way you look at it.
>
> I'm not sure the _tick functions should even be called from a timeout().
>
> In many ways it seems preferable to me to have then run sequentially
> from a single thread, possibly via a task-queue.
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20

Yeah, I suppose limiting it to one mii_tick routine per second would help
somewhat... but it's still a bad situation.

Actually, we could improve it quite a bit if someone adds NANODELAY()
(hint, hint...)  Couldn't we have a first-run nanodelay that just used
nanotime to do the counting for it?

Mike "Silby" Silbersack