[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51F9A80E.5010307@tabi.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:13:02 -0500
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...i.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC: Arpit Goel <B44344@...escale.com>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
takata@...ux-m32r.org, philb@....org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
linux390@...ibm.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>, john.stultz@...aro.org,
jesper.nilsson@...s.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
sam@...nborg.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-m32r@...linux-m32r.org, linux-m32r-ja@...linux-m32r.org,
linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, mattw@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Convert PowerPC macro spin_event_timeout() to architecture
independent macro
On 07/31/2013 07:04 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> If it yields why are we using udelay? Why not usleep_range()? It would
> be useful to have a variant that worked in interrupt context and it
> looked like that was almost possible.
I've never heard of usleep_range() before, so I don't know if it
applies. Apparently, udelay() includes its own call to cpu_relax(). Is
it possible that cpu_relax() is a "lightweight" yield, compared to sleeping?
FYI, you might want to look at the code reviews for spin_event_timeout()
on the linuxppc-dev mailing list, back in March 2009.
--
--
Timur Tabi
--
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