Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:31:06 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |