Re: Time sharing for interrupt threads

On 5/4/22 23:48, John Baldwin wrote:
> My recent changes to the softclock threads (raising their priority) were to
> address a livelock issue in which a constant stream of packets could starve
> timeout events.

Sorry for short-cutting the thread, but why can't we have multiple 
worker threads with different prio's for timers? In USB we have that, 
once for Giant locked and non-Giant locked callbacks. I mean, all timer 
interrupts are executed serially and any congested mutex will make all 
succeeding timer callbacks halt on that CPU core!

--HPS