Re: [PATCH 1/3] sfq: timer is deferrable

2008-01-20 Thread David Miller
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:57:00 -0800 > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 08:36:55PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:34:46 -0800 > > "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:49:00PM -0800, Step

Re: [PATCH 1/3] sfq: timer is deferrable

2008-01-18 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 08:36:55PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:34:46 -0800 > "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:49:00PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > The perturbation timer used for re-keying can be deferred, it doesn

Re: [PATCH 1/3] sfq: timer is deferrable

2008-01-18 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:34:46 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:49:00PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > The perturbation timer used for re-keying can be deferred, it doesn't > > need to be deterministic. > > The only concern that I can come up wit

Re: [PATCH 1/3] sfq: timer is deferrable

2008-01-18 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:49:00PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > The perturbation timer used for re-keying can be deferred, it doesn't > need to be deterministic. The only concern that I can come up with is that the sfq_perturbation timer might be on one CPU, and all the operations using the c

[PATCH 1/3] sfq: timer is deferrable

2008-01-18 Thread Stephen Hemminger
The perturbation timer used for re-keying can be deferred, it doesn't need to be deterministic. Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- a/net/sched/sch_sfq.c 2008-01-17 08:29:24.0 -0800 +++ b/net/sched/sch_sfq.c 2008-01-17 09:00:58.0 -0800 @@ -426,7 +