Re: [PATCH] timers: Make the lower-level timer function first call than higher-level

From: Muchun Song <smuchun@gmail.com>
To: tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	sboyd@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timers: Make the lower-level timer function first call than higher-level
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 00:51:36 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPSr9jFNGxWZBhF8d9z6GbKVLp5oj-bn-=96DsRBfFJJ_Xn=Vg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811281614220.1532@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

Hi tglx,

I'm sorry. Thanks for your reminder.

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午11:15写道：
>
> Song,
>
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > Follow the current code logic, the timer0 function is called until the
> > > function call of timer1-5 is completed. So the delay of timer0 is the time
> > > spent by other timer function calls. If we can call the timer function in
> > > the following order, this should be more friendly to lower-level timers.
> > >
> > >         timer0->timer1->->timer2->->timer3->->timer4->->timer5
> > >
> > > Although not friendly to higher-level timers, higher-level has larger
> > > granularity. Therefore the delay has less impact on higher-level.
> >
> > Well yes, that's clear. But is it a problem in practice and if so, what is
> > the measurable benefit.
>
> Polite reminder. Can you please describe what the practical relevance is of
> that and what real world problem you are solving? Ideally with numbers
> backing it up.
>

I just think that this change might be better for me when I read the code.
Maybe what I think is not a problem. So if there is something wrong,
please ignore the patch. Sorry.

Thanks.