[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080904162111.GM2772@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:21:11 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return value from schedule()
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > If schedule() returned whether or not it had scheduled another task, we
> > could do something like:
> >
> > if (!schedule())
> > udelay(10);
>
> hm, i'm not really sure - this really just seems to be a higher prio
> variant of yield() combined with some weird code. Do we really want to
> promote such arguably broken behavior? If there's any chance of any
> polling to take a material amount of CPU time it should be event driven
> to begin with.
Oh, I'm not concerned about CPU utilisation, I'm concerned about PCI bus
utilisation. Perhaps I'd like a yield_timeout() function instead where
I say that I'd like to not run for at least 10 microseconds?
Can we do that, or are we still jiffie-based there?
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists