lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 02/11] task_isolation: add initial support
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:18:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > + while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64) != KTIME_MAX) {
> > >
> > > You should add a function in tick-sched.c to get the next tick. This
> > > is supposed to be a private field.
> >
> > Just to make it clear. Neither the above nor a similar check in
> > tick-sched.c is going to happen.
> >
> > This busy waiting is just horrible. Get your act together and solve
> > the problems at the root and do not inflict your quick and dirty
> > 'solutions' on us.
>
> That's why I proposed a wait-wake scheme instead with the tick stop
> code. What's your opinion about such direction?

Definitely more sensible than mindlessly busy looping.

Thanks,

tglx



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-01 15:01    [W:0.195 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site