On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:52:15PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On P? 13-05-05 13:30:23, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Because it kills machine when interrupt latency gets too high?
> > > Like reading battery status using i2c...
> >
> > That's a bug in the I2C reader then. Don't shot the messenger for bad news.
>
> Disagreed.
>
> Linux is not real time OS. Perhaps some real-time constraints "may not
> spend > 100msec with interrupts disabled" would be healthy, but it
> certainly needs more discussion than "lets enable NMI
> watchdog.". It needs to be written somewhere in big bold letters, too.
While linux is not a real time OS it has been always known that
turning off interrupts for a long time is extremly rude.
If you really want you can use touch_nmi_watchdog in the delay
loop then. But note you have to compile it in, because touch_nmi_watchdog
is not exported (Linus vetoed that for good reasons).
But again do you really need to disable interrupts during this
i2c access? Can't you just use a schedule_timeout() and a semaphore?
Why would other interrupts cause a problem during such a long delay?
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
