G'day
On 8/8/06, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi!
> >> Well, whoever wrote thi has some serious problems (in attitude
> >> department). *Any* loop you design may take half a minute under
> >> streange circumstances.
>
> 6.
> common mistake in polling loops [from Linus]:
Yes, Linus was wrong here. Or more precisely, he's right original code
is broken, but his suggested "fix" is worse than the original.
unsigned long timeout = jiffies + HZ/2;
for (;;) {
if (ready())
return 0;
[IMAGINE HALF A SECOND DELAY HERE]
if (time_after(timeout, jiffies))
break;
msleep(10);
}
Oops.
> >Actually it may be broken, depending on use. In some cases this loop
> >may want to poll the hardware 50 times, 10msec appart... and your loop
> >can poll it only once in extreme conditions.
> >
> >Actually your loop is totally broken, and may poll only once (without
> >any delay) and then directly timeout :-P -- that will break _any_
> >user.
>
> The Idea is that we are checking some event in external hardware that
> we know will complete in a given time (This time is not dependant on
> system activity but is fixed). After that time if the event has not
> happened we know something has borked.
But you have to make sure YOU CHECK READY AFTER THE TIMEOUT. Linus'
code does not do that.
Pavel
Sorry I did not realise that was your problem with the code.
Would it help if we just explicitly added a
if (ready())
return 0;
after the loop, in the example code? so people wont miss adding
something like that in?
Darren J.
-
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]