[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.23-uv3 patch set released

> Anyway, in ide_wait_stat(), the "timeout" value is always either
> "WAIT_DRQ" (5*HZ/100) or it is "WAIT_READY" (3*HZ/100). And look at
> WAIT_READY a bit more:
> #if defined(CONFIG_APM) || defined(CONFIG_APM_MODULE)
> #define WAIT_READY (5*HZ) /* 5sec - some laptops are very slow */
> #else
> #define WAIT_READY (3*HZ/100) /* 30msec - should be instantaneous */
> I bet that the _real_ problem is this. That "3*HZ/100" value is just too
> damn short. It has already been increased to 5*HZ for anything that has
> APM enabled, but anybody who doesn't use APM gets a _really_ short
> timeout.
> My suggestion: change the non-APM timeout to something much larger. Make
> it ten times bigger, rather than leaving it at a value that us so small
> that a single interrupt could make a difference..
> In fact, right now a single timer interrupt on 2.4.x is the difference
> between waiting 20ms and 30ms. That's a _big_ relative difference.
> Andrew - unless you disagree, I'd just be inlined to change both the DRQ
> and READY timeouts to be a bit larger. On working hardware it shouldn't
> matter, so how about just making them both be something like 100 msec (and
> leave that strange really big APM value alone).

I believe you should get rid of that CONFIG_APM. Its wrong. CONFIG_APM
no longer corresponds with "is laptop". You can have laptop with ACPI

When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.059 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site