[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49B80081.5060703@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:18:41 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rdreier@...co.com,
jirislaby@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org, will.newton@...il.com,
hancockrwd@...il.com, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event_timeout()
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Are you talking about the udelay() inside the loop? If so, I agree
>> that this is bad and have removed it in the PowerPC-specific version:
>
> The behaviour you want there is system specific - 10uS is a minimum
> politeness value for x86 PCI bus for example.
So we need to allow for delays between successive rights? We can
provide that with a third parameter to the macro.
>> rdtsc instruction. In this case, we're not adding arbitrary delays
>> into the loop, and we're not using jiffies, but we are
>> architecture-dependent.
>
> and not useful
Is there an architecture-independent method for reading a timebase
register that's not jiffies?
> A macro of this form really needs to be able to look like
>
> spin_until_timeout(readb(foo) & 0x80, 30 * HZ) {
> udelay(10);
> /* Maybe do other stuff */
> }
>
> to be more generally useful
You mean something like this:
#define spin_until_timeout(condition, timeout) \
for (unsigned long __timeout = jiffies + (timeout); \
(!(condition) && time_after(jiffies, __timeout)); )
How do I return a value indicating whether a timeout occurred or
condition came true?
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
--
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