Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:02:49 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New "timeout" api, to replace callout Message-ID: <18443.1196596969@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:58:04 GMT." <18378.1196596684@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <18378.1196596684@critter.freebsd.dk>, "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes: >> o TCP has hot and cold CPU/cache affinity. >> >> -> The timer facility should provide strong, weak and "don't care" >> CPU affinity. The affinity should be selected for a timer as >> whole, not upon each call. > >That is the "timeout_p" you pass into timeout_init() is for. > >What values we will provide there is not decided, apart from NULL >meaning "whatever..." I guess I need to elaborate that point some more: If we want CPU affinity, what happens that that we pass a per-cpu timeout provider: timeout_init(&pcpu->timouts, ...) If we want a private timeout group for NFS we pass that in: timeout_init(&nfs_timeouts, ...) Think of the implmentation of the timeouts as an object of which we can have multiple instances with various private properties... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18443.1196596969>