[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9810cff90802221121s216f69f4k4a5f39eaaf11dd7f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:21:14 -0800
From: "Bill Huey (hui)" <bill.huey@...il.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>, "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kevin@...man.org,
cminyard@...sta.com, dsingleton@...sta.com, dwalker@...sta.com,
npiggin@...e.de, dsaxena@...xity.net, gregkh@...e.de,
sdietrich@...ell.com, pmorreale@...ell.com, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 08/14] add a loop counter based timeout mechanism
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Bill Huey (hui) <bill.huey@...il.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I'm not very keen on having a constant there without some
> contention instrumentation to see how long the spins are. It would be
> better to just let it run until either task->on_cpu is off or checking
> if the "current" in no longer matches the mutex owner for the runqueue
> in question. At that point, you know the thread isn't running.
> Spinning on something like that is just a waste of time. It's for that
> reason that doing in the spin outside of a preempt critical section
> isn't really needed
Excuse me, I meant to say "...isn't a problem".
bill
--
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