Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:51:54 -0700 | From | yodaiken@fsmlabs ... | Subject | Re: [linux-audio-dev] low-latency scheduling patch for 2.4.0 |
| |
> The thing that really does concern me about the flash driver code is the > fact that it often wants to wait for about 100µs. On machines with > HZ==100, that sucks if you use udelay() and it sucks if you schedule(). So > we end up dropping the spinlock (so at least bottom halves can run again) > and calling: > > static inline void cfi_udelay(int us) > { > if (current->need_resched) > schedule(); > else > udelay(us); > }
So then a >100us delay is ok ?
I have a dumb RT perspective: either you have to make the deadline or you don't. If you have to make the deadline, then why are you checking need_resched?
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |