[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <47C3E558.BA47.005A.0@novell.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:09:28 -0700
From: "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>
Cc: <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, <mingo@...e.hu>, <bill.huey@...il.com>,
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <kevin@...man.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<cminyard@...sta.com>, <dsingleton@...sta.com>,
<dwalker@...sta.com>, "Moiz Kohari" <MKohari@...ell.com>,
"Peter Morreale" <PMorreale@...ell.com>,
"Sven Dietrich" <SDietrich@...ell.com>, <dsaxena@...xity.net>,
<acme@...hat.com>, <ak@...e.de>, <gregkh@...e.de>,
<npiggin@...e.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 6/9] add a loop counter based timeout
mechanism
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:06 PM, in message
<20080225220601.GH2659@....ucw.cz>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
>
> I believe you have _way_ too many config variables. If this can be set
> at runtime, does it need a config option, too?
Generally speaking, I think until this algorithm has an adaptive-timeout in addition to an adaptive-spin/sleep, these .config based defaults are a good idea. Sometimes setting these things at runtime are a PITA when you are talking about embedded systems that might not have/want a nice userspace sysctl-config infrastructure. And changing the defaults in the code is unattractive for some users. I don't think its a big deal either way, so if people hate the config options, they should go. But I thought I would throw this use-case out there to ponder.
Regards,
-Greg
--
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