[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1267461438.5157.9586.camel@thor.local>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:37:18 +0100
From: Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
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 Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:33 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> W dniu 26 lutego 2010 20:01 użytkownik Ville Syrjälä <syrjala@....fi> napisał:
> > 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.
>
> Ouch, I can see it gone bad already.
>
> Firstly I simply just wanted to avoid condition in wait_event_*. It
> looked unnecessary as I got interrupts (signals).
So this code runs in user process context? If so, it should return to
userspace ASAP on signal receipt, otherwise e.g. smoothness of X mouse
movement may suffer.
If that's a problem, then maybe the code should run in a different
context, e.g. a tasklet or some kind of worker kernel thread.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
--
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