On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 06:55:00PM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> 
> Hi Dipankar,
> 
> > I have been experimenting with Ingo's smptimers and I ended up
> > extending it a little bit. I would really appreciate comments
> > on whether these things make sense or not.
> 
> I tried it out and found that we were context switching like crazy.
> It seems we were always running the timers out of a tasklet because
> we never unlocked the net_bh_lock.

Ok, here is the fixed smptimers patch (with the changes I mentioned
in the earlier mail). Hopefully the goto lock unwinding logic
in run_local_timer() and run_timer_tasklet() are not messed up 
this time around.

We need to change bust_spinlocks() to bust that CPUs
timer base lock instead, though.

Thanks
-- 
Dipankar Sarma  <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net
Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.