Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:50:22 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "Expensive timeout(9) function..." Message-ID: <20030401104630.T1612@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <36448.1049212795@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <36448.1049212795@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030401104630.T1612>