[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100226190100.GQ10145@sci.fi>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:01:00 +0200
From: Ville Syrjälä <syrjala@....fi>
To: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
DRI <dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] time: add wait_interruptible_timeout macro to
sleep (w. timeout) until wake_up
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 06:33:57PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> W dniu 26 lutego 2010 17:14 użytkownik Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> napisał:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0100 Rafa Miecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +#define wait_interruptible_timeout(wq, timeout)
> >> \
> >> +({ \
> >> + long ret = timeout; \
> >> + \
> >> + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); \
> >> + prepare_to_wait(&wq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); \
> >> + if (!signal_pending(current)) \
> >> + ret = schedule_timeout(ret); \
> >> + finish_wait(&wq, &wait); \
> >> + \
> >> + ret; \
> >> +})
> >
> > It's often a mistake to use signals in-kernel. Signals are more a
> > userspace thing and it's better to use the lower-level kernel-specific
> > messaging tools in-kernel. Bear in mind that userspace can
> > independently and asynchronously send, accept and block signals.
>
> Can you point me to something kernel-level please?
>
>
> > Can KMS use wait_event_interruptible_timeout()?
>
> No. Please check definition of this:
>
> #define wait_event_interruptible_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
> ({ \
> long __ret = timeout; \
> if (!(condition)) \
> __wait_event_interruptible_timeout(wq, condition, __ret); \
> __ret; \
> })
>
> It uses condition there, but that's not a big issue. We just need to
> pass 0 (false) there and it will work so far.
Disabling the condition check doesn't make sense.
You could use a completion.
init_completion(vbl_irq);
enable_vbl_irq();
wait_for_completion(vbl_irq);
disable_vbl_irq();
and call complete(vbl_irq) in the interrupt handler.
The same would of course work with just some flag or counter
and a wait queue. Isn't there already a vbl counter that you could
compare in the condition?
--
Ville Syrjälä
syrjala@....fi
http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/
--
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