lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] adjust x86-64 watchdog tick calculation
Hi!

> > > > > > 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
> > > ^^^^
> > > You mean "microseconds", right? 100ms will be perceived by the user as,
> > > well, their machine freezing for 100ms...
> >
> > I did mean miliseconds. IIRC current watchdog is at one second and it
> > still triggers even in cases when operation just takes too long.
>
> I thought there was an understanding that 1 ms would be the target for
> desktop responsiveness. So yes, disabling interrupts for more than 1ms
> is considered a bug.

I do not think so.

In may be "worth fixing", but no, that does not mean you should stick
"if ints_disabled > 1msec panic()" into code. That would make most
systems unusable.

Think pio-only disks, for example. Think serial console.
Pavel
--
Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.
-
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: 2005-05-14 01:32    [W:0.055 / U:31.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site