On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:28:54AM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> > +#define SMALLUSECS 100
>
> John, I did not see your posts until this had already made it out.
> I would think that the folks running realtime applications would expect
> udelay to hold off for even shorter periods of time. I would expect
> something along the line of 20 or 25 uSec.
A good question ... I'm going to put John's change in as-is for now so
that 2.6.15 can benefit from the reduced code size of the out-of-line
and avoid the ugly bug when preemption is enabled on a drifty system.
We can make fine tune changes to the udelay() implementation after we
get some data on what is needed.
> How much drift would you expect from this? I have not tried this, but
> what about something more along the lines of:
>
> #define MAX_USECS_WHILE_NOT_PREMPTIBLE 20
As we reduce the non-preemtible window drift in my version of udelay()
would get worse ... but I haven't done any measurements on how much worse.
> timeout += next * local_cpu_data->cyc_per_usec;
> while (ia64_get_itc() < timeout)
> cpu_relax();
Bad news if your ar.itc wraps around (less than four centuries of uptime
at 1.6GHz :-)
-Tony
-
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]
