lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: some thoughts about TSC based delay_tsc()
Date
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 09:27:54 pm you wrote:
> * Marin Mitov <mitov@issp.bas.bg> wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > The patch is quite good ;-) but we forget when it is needed :-( In
> > fact we need it only for PREEMPT SMP kernels - it could hurt PREEMPT
> > UP kernels (no migration possible), so no need for
> > preempt_disable()/preempt_enable().
> >
> > In short the old version of delay_tsc() is good for UP kernels and NON
> > PREEMPT SMP kernels too.
>
> please reply to the public list, so that discussions do not get lost.
>
> i dont think there's any problem: udelay() is about _wasting_ cycles -
> it's what drivers use for short delays.

Sure for the thread executing udelay(), but not for the other ready threads
which should also wait till preempt_enable() to grab the same cpu even
for PREEMPT (UP or SMP) kernels (or I misunderstand something?).

Marin
>
> Ingo


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-21 21:07    [W:0.023 / U:3.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site