From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Make net watchdog timers 1 sec jiffy aligned Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:32:18 +0200 Message-ID: <465DD142.6040409@trash.net> References: <20070529180112.GC5411@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <20070530105936.6c988da5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070530112056.0aeb9498@freepuppy> <465DC598.5060407@trash.net> <20070530191533.GB3216@linux-os.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Venki Pallipadi Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46618 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751777AbXE3TdG (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 15:33:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070530191533.GB3216@linux-os.sc.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Venki Pallipadi wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 08:42:32PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> >>It seems wasteful to add per-packet overhead for tx timeouts, which >>should be an exception. Do drivers really care about the exact >>timeout value? Compared to a packet transmission time its incredibly >>long anyways .. > > > I agree. Doing a mod_timer or hrtimer_forward to push forward may add to the > complexity depending on how often TX happens. > > Are the drivers really worried about exact timeouts here? Just guessing, but I don't think they are, after all timers can be late. > Can we use rounding for the timers that are more than a second, at least? Also sounds reasonable.