From: Martin Devera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:08:09 +0100
> Like
> max_jiff = jiffies+2; /* not +1 at we could be at +0. now */
> while (jiffies if (more_work) schedule_to_next_jiffie();
>
> This will keep event queue work load under 66% of system load which
> seems reason
David Miller wrote:
From: Martin Devera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 increment
From: Martin Devera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 sho
up to single jiffy interval and then delay remainder to other
jiffy.
Signed-off-by: Martin Devera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think we would be wise to use something other than loops_per_jiffy.
Depending upon the loop calibration method used by a particular
architecture it can me one of many differe
From: Martin Devera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:02:56 +0100
> From: Martin Devera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> HTB is event driven algorithm and part of its work is to apply
> scheduled events at proper times. It tried to defend itself from
> livelock by processing only limited numbe
From: Martin Devera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HTB is event driven algorithm and part of its work is to apply
scheduled events at proper times. It tried to defend itself from
livelock by processing only limited number of events per dequeue.
Because of faster computers some users already hit this hardcode
