On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> schedule_timeout(1) is ambiguous in older/unchanged code since 2.4, as
> it indicated a 10 millisecond sleep then. Now, in 2.6, it indicates a 1
> millisecond sleep (HZ==1000). I am trying to prevent issues like this
> coming up in the future (CONFIG_HZ has hit -mm, e.g.) and msleep() is a
> good way to do so.
Well, HZ has never been consistent across platforms, e.g. 1024 for
the Alpha or even within certain platforms, e.g. 128 vs 100 for MIPS for
different configurations, so relying on jiffies to provide any absolute
time measurement has always been a misconception. But assuming all code
authors have failed to observe it is probably going a little bit too far,
so I'd always assume a given piece of code is correct unless I had reasons
to decide it does something silly.
> If you are trying to sleep for the shortest amount of time possible (a
> tick), though, then the code is fine, I guess. A comment may be useful,
> though.
This is obviously the case -- the code waits for a condition of an I/O
device to change and does not want to hog the CPU for the duration as the
device is slooow. I don't think any comment is needed -- it speaks for
itself: "I'm giving up now, but let me proceed at the next opportunity."
Maciej
-
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]
