Il 09/10/2013 14:58, Hans de Goede ha scritto: > > > I still think we should add my patch in some form, since the lock > starvation > caused by timers set to expire in the past could still happen in other > cases, > esp for timer users who take a time stamp once and then add incremental > values to trigger the next run, these can get behind quite a bit if there > are latency spikes, and we don't wont to run without ever releasing the > lock while these are catching up.
I agree. Do you also agree that the equivalent workaround, before Alex's patch, was MIN_REARM_TIMER_NS (and thus 250 microseconds)? Paolo
