[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed82fe3e0903121205k552a83bft9ac3b63c64a293c8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:05:05 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rdreier@...co.com,
jirislaby@...il.com, will.newton@...il.com, hancockrwd@...il.com,
jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event_timeout()
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> sched_clock() does that, but:
> - it falls back to jiffies on poor platforms
I think it's ok to fall back to jiffies where necessary, but these two
functions are too heavy-weight for my tastes.
> But something that seems to always work, is simply count loops and rely
> on whatever delay is in the specified loop.
>
> #define spin_until_timeout(condition, timeout, rc) \
> for (unsigned long __timeout = 0; \
> !(rc = (condition)) && __timeout < (timeout); \
> __timeout++)
But that's the thing - I don't want a required delay inside the loop.
I guess I'm going to have to think about this for a while. I'd like
to see something like cycles_per_usec() as a companion function to
get_cycles().
--
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