Re: [PATCH] ia64: disable preemption in udelay()

[Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>]

On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 17:52 -0800, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Luck, Tony wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:25:26PM -0800, hawkes@sgi.com wrote:
> > > Sending this to a wider audience:
> > > 
> > > The udelay() inline for ia64 uses the ITC.  If CONFIG_PREEMPT is enabled
> > > and the platform has unsynchronized ITCs and the calling task migrates
> > > to another CPU while doing the udelay loop, then the effective delay may
> > > be too short or very, very long.
> > > 
> > > The most simple fix is to disable preemption around the udelay looping.
> > > The downside is that this inhibits realtime preemption for cases of long
> > > udelays.  One datapoint:  an SGI realtime engineer reports that if
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT is turned off, that no significant holdoffs are
> > > are attributed to udelay().
> > > 
> > > I am reluctant to propose a much more complicated patch (that disables
> > > preemption only for "short" delays, and uses the global RTC as the time
> > > base for longer, preemptible delays) unless this patch introduces
> > > significant and unacceptable preemption delays.
> > 
> > Stuck between a rock and the proverbial hard place.
> > 
> > I think that the more complex patch is needed though.  If some crazy
> > driver has a pre-emptible udelay(10000), then you really don't want
> > to spin for that long without allowing preemption.
> 
> If it's a preemptible sleep period it should just use msleep.

There are 10 drivers that udelay(10000) or more and a TON that
udelay(1000).  Turning those all into 1ms+ non preemptible sections will
be very bad.

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/