[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52B059CE.9090709@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:03:58 +0200
From: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, rui.zhang@...el.com,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] cleanups and optimizations
n 17/12/2013 15:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Awesomeness.. you'll work on subtracting the spin time from the sleep
> time?
Me or someone on our team will work on it.
I'm not sure that subtracting the spin time is the optimal thing to do.
The busy poll time is supposed to be limited to something less than 1ms.
(I'm using 50us in most of my tests)
This is typically orders of magnitude smaller than the poll timeout.
Would it make more sense to just enforce a limit on poll time?
What do you think?
Thanks,
Eliezer
--
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