[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131119070557.GD32367@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:05:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] wait_for_completion_timeout() considered harmful.
* Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:42:09 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > I briefly talked to Thomas about this earlier today and we need to
> > fix this at a lower level -- the quick 'n dirty solution is to add
> > 1 jiffy down in the timer-wheel when we enqueue these things.
>
> That can lead to situations like the one I encountered years ago
> where msleep(1) would snooze for 20ms. I didn't get much love for
> my idea of switching msleep() to hrtimers back then, but I still
> think it might be be better to provide the resolution that the
> interface appears to promise.
That looks like a sensible approach - mind resending that patch? We
can put it into the timer tree and see what happens.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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