From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt DO NOT APPLY] Fix for tg3 networking lockup Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:25:29 -0700 Message-ID: <44D293F9.7040204@linux.intel.com> References: <20060803201741.GA7894@thunk.org> <20060803.144845.66061203.davem@davemloft.net> <1154647699.3117.26.camel@rh4> <20060803.164311.91310742.davem@davemloft.net> <20060804000707.GA15342@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com ([143.182.124.22]:14750 "EHLO azsmga101.ch.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932383AbWHDA0H (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:26:07 -0400 To: Theodore Tso , David Miller , mchan@broadcom.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060804000707.GA15342@thunk.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Theodore Tso wrote: > Removing the timer-based "ping" might be a good thing to do from the > point of view of reducing power utilization of laptops (but hey, I > don't have a tg3 in my laptop, so I won't worry about it a whole lot :-), > but I agree that in general the RT patches need to be able to > call functions such as tg3_timer() reliably even when under a high > real-time process workload, without needing to use the blunt hammer of > "chrt -f 95 `pidof softirq-timer`". (Since not all timer callbacks > need to be run at rt prio 95.) > I suppose the timer subsystem needs a "I'd like to have this timer called at time X, but it's ok to call it later until time X+Y" option; that's useful for RT like stuff but also for power savings... (eg you can batch timer firings that way a lot better)