Re: timer_bh behaviour incorrect for 2.2.13?

Ingo Molnar (mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu)
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:02:56 +0100 (CET)


On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Helge Hafting wrote:

> A DOS attack may come via the network, but probably not from the timer
> interrupt. So how about making that one a special case, so the timer
> bottom half always runs when necassary, while the others can be delayed
> for DOS protection?

hm, i'm not so sure. Networking-related traffic _can_ generate an
excessive number of timers, thus lots of BH_TIMER load.

-- mingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/