On Mon, 13 May 2013, Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 24 April 2013 16:52, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 9 April 2013 20:22, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[Steven replied to a personal Ping!!, including everybody again]

On 9 April 2013 19:25, Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 14:05 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

Ping!!

Remind me again. What problem are you trying to solve?

I was trying to migrate a running timer which arms itself, so that we don't
keep a cpu busy just for servicing this timer.

Which mechanism is migrating the timer away?

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

On 20 March 2013 20:43, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Steven/Thomas,

I came back to this patch after completing some other stuff and posting
wq part of this patchset separately.

I got your point and understand how this would fail.

@Thomas: I need your opinion first. Do you like this concept of migrating
running timer or not? Or you see some basic problem with this concept?

I have no objections to the functionality per se, but the proposed
solution is not going to fly.

Aside of bloating the data structure you're changing the semantics of
__mod_timer(). No __mod_timer() caller can deal with -EBUSY. So you'd
break the world and some more.

Here is a list of questions:

      - Which mechanism migrates timers?

      - How is that mechanism triggered?

      - How does that deal with CPU bound timers?

Thanks,

	tglx