[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1184738344.4178.18.camel@raven.themaw.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:59:04 +0800
From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To: davids@...master.com
Cc: "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
Subject: RE: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v19
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 14:16 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > * Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes it does and I have two reported bugs so far.
> > >
> > > In several places I have code similar to:
> > >
> > > wait.tv_sec = time(NULL) + 1;
> > > wait.tv_nsec = 0;
> > >
> > > signaled = 0;
> > > while (!signaled) {
> > > status = pthread_cond_timedwait(&cond, &mutex, &wait);
> > > if (status) {
> > > if (status == ETIMEDOUT)
> > > break;
> > > fatal(status);
> > > }
> > > }
> >
> > ah! It passes in a low-res time source into a high-res time interface
> > (pthread_cond_timedwait()). Could you change the time(NULL) + 1 to
> > time(NULL) + 2, or change it to:
> >
> > gettimeofday(&wait, NULL);
> > wait.tv_sec++;
> >
> > does this solve the spinning?
Yes, adding in the offset within the current second appears to resolve
the issue. Thanks Ingo.
> >
> > i'm wondering how widespread this is. If automount is the only app doing
> > this then _maybe_ we could get away with it by changing automount?
I don't think the change is unreasonable since I wasn't using an
accurate time in the condition wait, so that's a coding mistake on my
part which I will fix.
Ian
-
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