Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:02:48 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P1 |
| |
* Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:
> > + touch_preempt_timing(); > > while ((readb(ioaddr + MIICmd) & 0x40) && --boguscnt > 0) > > ; > > + touch_preempt_timing(); > > > > assuming that the latencies still show up even if delimited like this. > > (note that this only changes the way the latency is tracked - the > > latency itself is still there so this isnt a fix.) > > > > Sure, but, what would this accomplish, if the latency is still there? > Are we just trying to track down exactly where in the network driver > this is triggered?
yeah. If it's the first chunk then we could perhaps avoid it by doing it outside of the lock.
Ingo - 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/
| |