[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236913421.25062.19.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:03:41 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
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()
> 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().
I think that's where you're wrong :-)
Just require the delay inside the loop, it will make everything nicer.
There are also some good reasons to do that:
- The delay between "polls" of the register may have to be controlled,
for example some HW will choke if polled too fast
- If you aren't in an atomic section, you may want to use msleep() and
thus be schedule friendly
- It fixes all the problems mentioned earlier
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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