[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa686aa40903111945g53a0ba5au200fe9362e315175@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:45:57 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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()
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 13:18 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I prefer Alan's method of having the macro be followed by { and } so we
> can add things in there. The delay between access will often be somewhat
> platform or device specific, and some drivers might be able to do useful
> things while spinning.
>
> The other big advantage of that approach is that drivers that aren't in
> an atomic section can use msleep() and allow the kernel to schedule on
> that processor.
Ack! I totally agree.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
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