[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080225220601.GH2659@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:06:01 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc: 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, bill.huey@...il.com,
kevin@...man.org, cminyard@...sta.com, dsingleton@...sta.com,
dwalker@...sta.com, npiggin@...e.de, dsaxena@...xity.net,
ak@...e.de, acme@...hat.com, gregkh@...e.de, sdietrich@...ell.com,
pmorreale@...ell.com, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 6/9] add a loop counter based timeout
mechanism
On Mon 2008-02-25 11:01:08, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> From: Sven Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>
Why is this good idea?
> Signed-off-by: Sven Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>
> ---
>
> +config RTLOCK_DELAY
> + int "Default delay (in loops) for adaptive rtlocks"
> + range 0 1000000000
> + depends on ADAPTIVE_RTLOCK
> + default "10000"
> + help
> + This allows you to specify the maximum attempts a task will spin
> + attempting to acquire an rtlock before sleeping. The value is
> + tunable at runtime via a sysctl. A setting of 0 (zero) disables
> + the adaptive algorithm entirely.
> +
I believe you have _way_ too many config variables. If this can be set
at runtime, does it need a config option, too?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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