Hi tglx, I'm sorry. Thanks for your reminder.
Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午11:15写道： > > Song, > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Muchun Song wrote: > > > Follow the current code logic, the timer0 function is called until the > > > function call of timer1-5 is completed. So the delay of timer0 is the time > > > spent by other timer function calls. If we can call the timer function in > > > the following order, this should be more friendly to lower-level timers. > > > > > > timer0->timer1->->timer2->->timer3->->timer4->->timer5 > > > > > > Although not friendly to higher-level timers, higher-level has larger > > > granularity. Therefore the delay has less impact on higher-level. > > > > Well yes, that's clear. But is it a problem in practice and if so, what is > > the measurable benefit. > > Polite reminder. Can you please describe what the practical relevance is of > that and what real world problem you are solving? Ideally with numbers > backing it up. > I just think that this change might be better for me when I read the code. Maybe what I think is not a problem. So if there is something wrong, please ignore the patch. Sorry. Thanks.
