Timers

NTDEV
1

Guys
Had a simple question. Say I have to time a lot of
commands. Is it better

  1. To use a free running timer and maintain queues and
    counts et al.
  2. To have a timer for each command.

Now the only source I have access to is Linux, and in
their SCSI stack, they seem to be having a separate
timer for each command. Im not sure which one is
better. managing ur own list based on one timer, or
just defining a new timer for each command?
The second one is definitely easier, but is it also a
bottleneck? And please, I dont want a “Linux sucks”
war to start here:) That was just an example.

Thanks,
Mark

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

2

(Ok, no “Linux sucks” comment … but it does blow.)

You are aware that timer granularity will force a quantum interval of
typically 10 ms? Given that, I would use one timer.

Gary G. Little
Seagate Technologies, LLC

“Mark Lobo” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> Guys
> Had a simple question. Say I have to time a lot of
> commands. Is it better
> 1) To use a free running timer and maintain queues and
> counts et al.
> 2) To have a timer for each command.
>
> Now the only source I have access to is Linux, and in
> their SCSI stack, they seem to be having a separate
> timer for each command. Im not sure which one is
> better. managing ur own list based on one timer, or
> just defining a new timer for each command?
> The second one is definitely easier, but is it also a
> bottleneck? And please, I dont want a “Linux sucks”
> war to start here:) That was just an example.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
>

3

> Had a simple question. Say I have to time a lot of

commands. Is it better

  1. To use a free running timer and maintain queues and
    counts et al.

Single timer per the whole list seems to be more elegant.

Max