[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080904103049.01f748d9@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:30:49 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return value from schedule()
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:21:11 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > If schedule() returned whether or not it had scheduled another
> > > task, we could do something like:
> > >
> > > if (!schedule())
> > > udelay(10);
> >
> > hm, i'm not really sure - this really just seems to be a higher
> > prio variant of yield() combined with some weird code. Do we really
> > want to promote such arguably broken behavior? If there's any
> > chance of any polling to take a material amount of CPU time it
> > should be event driven to begin with.
>
> Oh, I'm not concerned about CPU utilisation, I'm concerned about PCI
> bus utilisation. Perhaps I'd like a yield_timeout() function instead
> where I say that I'd like to not run for at least 10 microseconds?
>
> Can we do that, or are we still jiffie-based there?
>
use schedule_hrtimerout() for this (hopefully will be in 2.6.28);
see this weeks LWN for an article describing it
--
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