Re: No 100 HZ timer!

[george anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Mark Salisbury wrote:
> 
> > Given a system speed, there is a repeating timer rate which will consume
> > 100% of the system in handling the timer interrupts.  An attempt will
> > be made to detect this rate and adjust the timer to prevent system
> > lockup.  This adjustment will look like timer overruns to the user
> > (i.e. we will take a percent of the interrupts and record the untaken
> > interrupts as overruns)
> 
> just at first blush, there are some things in general but I need to read
> this again and more closely....
> 
> but, with POSIX timers, there is a nifty little restriction/protection built
> into the spec regarding the re-insertion of short interval repeating timers.
> that is: a repeating timer will not be re-inserted until AFTER the
> associated signal handler has been handled.

Actually what it says is: "Only a single signal shall be queued to the
process for a given timer at any point in time.  When a timer for which
a signal is still pending expires, no signal shall be queued, and a
timer overrun shall occur."

It then goes on to talk about the overrun count and how it is to be
managed.

What I am suggesting is that the system should detect when these
interrupts would come so fast as to stall the system and just set up a
percent of them while bumping the overrun count as if they had all
occured.

George

> 
> this has some interesting consequences for signal handling and signal
> delivery implementations, but importantly, it ensures that even a flood of
> POSIX timers with very short repeat intervals will be handled cleanly.
> 
> I will get more detailed comments to you tomorrow.
> 
> Mark Salisbury
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/