[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1394392160.15968.13.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 19:09:20 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: mkl@...gutronix.de, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: dev_deactivate_many(): use msleep(1)
instead of yield() to wait for outstanding qdisc_run calls
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 16:06 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:49:47 +0100
>
> > @@ -839,7 +839,7 @@ void dev_deactivate_many(struct list_head *head)
> > /* Wait for outstanding qdisc_run calls. */
> > list_for_each_entry(dev, head, unreg_list)
> > while (some_qdisc_is_busy(dev))
> > - yield();
> > + msleep(1)
> > }
>
> I don't understand this.
>
> yield() should really _mean_ yield.
>
> The intent of a yield() call, like this one here, is unambiguously
> that the current thread cannot do anything until some other thread
> gets onto the cpu and makes forward progress.
>
> Therefore it should allow lower priority threads to run, not just
> equal or higher priority ones.
Until when?
yield() is not a sensible operation in a preemptive multitasking system,
regardless of RT.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists