![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:52:15PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On P? 13-05-05 13:30:23, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Because it kills machine when interrupt latency gets too high? > > > Like reading battery status using i2c... > > > > That's a bug in the I2C reader then. Don't shot the messenger for bad news. > > Disagreed. > > Linux is not real time OS. Perhaps some real-time constraints "may not > spend > 100msec with interrupts disabled" would be healthy, but it > certainly needs more discussion than "lets enable NMI > watchdog.". It needs to be written somewhere in big bold letters, too. While linux is not a real time OS it has been always known that turning off interrupts for a long time is extremly rude. If you really want you can use touch_nmi_watchdog in the delay loop then. But note you have to compile it in, because touch_nmi_watchdog is not exported (Linus vetoed that for good reasons). But again do you really need to disable interrupts during this i2c access? Can't you just use a schedule_timeout() and a semaphore? Why would other interrupts cause a problem during such a long delay? -Andi - 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: 2005-05-15 12:40 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||