Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:56:12 -0800 | From | Nish Aravamudan <> | Subject | Re: dynamic-hz |
| |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:01:23 +0100, Domen Puncer <domen@coderock.org> wrote: > On 13/12/04 19:54 -0800, Nish Aravamudan wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:25:21 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > The patch only does HZ at dynamic time. But of course it's absolutely > > > > trivial to define it at compile time, it's probably a 3 liner on top of > > > > my current patch ;). However personally I don't think the three liner > > > > will worth the few seconds more spent configuring the kernel ;). > > > > > > We still have 1000-odd places which do things like > > > > > > schedule_timeout(HZ/10); > > > ... > > Many drivers use > > > > set_current_state(TASK_{UN,}INTERRUPTIBLE); > > schedule_timeout(1); // or some other small value < 10 > > > ... > > If they really meant to use schedule_timeout(1) in the sense of > > highest resolution delay possible (the latter above), then they > > probably should just call schedule() directly. > > Um... no (and you should remember this from our discussions), schedule() > gives up cpu until waitqueue wakeup or signal is received, and that can > be a really long delay :-)
True; sorry about that, Domen, completely forgot about that. Will think on it further.
-Nish - 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/
| |