Messages in this thread |  | | From | Luís Henriques <> | Subject | Re: copy to user | Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:02:39 +0000 |
| |
> If you put the process in (un)interruptible sleep in the kernel, won't this > be enough? This is different than SIGSTOP. Is the requirement that this > process not leave the kernel call, or that it is actually consuming CPU > cycles as well?
The process needs to be using CPU time, however, there must be a chance to the scheduler to change the current process... if this occurs, than the delay has to be aborted.
> > > About using udelay... this soluction seemed fine to me at first but if I > > hang the CPU with udelay the scheduler will no be doing it's job (isn't > > it?). This would give me even more intrusiveness (another requirement: > > the less intrusiveness as possible). > > It would probably work OK on an SMP system, since tasks can still be run > on the other CPU. > > Cheers, Andreas
-- Luís Henriques - 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/
|  |