[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:47:41 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Busy-waiting with interrupts disabled
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 17:12 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> How long is it okay to busy-wait with interrupts disabled? Are there
> any clear-cut guidelines?
>
> My feeling is that for ordinary desktop use, 1-2 ms should be about the
> limit, but other people may feel differently. (There's one spot in
> ehci-hcd where the delay can last up to 250 ms, which does seem rather
"250 ms", holy freaking OUCH! Batman!
> excessive. Fortunately it never takes that long unless the hardware is
> broken.)
>
> No doubt the RT people would say the upper bound should be on the order
> of a few microseconds or less. I'd be happy to change ehci-hcd, which
> has several delays in the 1-2 ms range -- but they tend to be nested
> inside routines that are called within the scope of spinlock_irq, which
> means a fair amount of rewriting would be needed.
>
> Any thoughts or recommendations?
Note that in -rt, spinlocks are really mutexes (unless they are
raw_spinlocks, which you shouldn't do). Thus, if your spin is with
spinlock_irq, it wont affect -rt, as it will not have interrupts
disabled.
But I could imagine that such a long latency could manifest itself into
something nasty (lots of interrupts queued up and such) that normal
desktop users might see a hiccup or two.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists