From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Devera Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24 1/1] sch_htb: fix "too many events" situation Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:08:09 +0100 Message-ID: <47B95909.8060202@cdi.cz> References: <20080217.232829.222344360.davem@davemloft.net> <47B93BE8.7010905@cdi.cz> <20080218.001736.124204016.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from gate.cdi.cz ([80.95.109.117]:49775 "EHLO luxik.cdi.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756906AbYBRKIM (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:08:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080218.001736.124204016.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Martin Devera > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:03:52 +0100 > >> aha, ok, I'm not so informed about crossplatform issues. >> I was also thining about looking at jiffies value and stop once >> it is startjiffy+2, but with NO_HZ introduction, are jiffies >> still incremented ? > > There should always be at least once cpu tasked with incrementing > jiffies. Lots of stuff would break if not :-) > Aha ok, so that when (at least one) cpu is busy then I can count on jiffies incrementing via do_timer, can't I ? So that I'd remove the loop limit altogether but limiting it to 1 or 2 jiffies to prevent livelock. Like max_jiff = jiffies+2; /* not +1 at we could be at +0.9999 now */ while (jiffies