lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:

>> Surely you would call set_acceptable_latency() *before* running such
>> operation that requires the given latency? And that
>> set_acceptable_latency
>> would block the caller until all CPUs are set to wake within this
>> latency.
>>
>> That would be the API semantics I would expect, anyway.
>
>
> but that means it blocks, and thus can't be used in irq context

Is that a problem? I guess it could be, but you don't want to
give a false sense of security either. Having an explicit _nosync
version may make that clear?

>
> (the usage model I imagine happens most is a set_acceptable_latency()
> which can block during device init,
> with either no or a very course limit, and a
> modify_acceptable_latency(), which cannot block, from irq context or
> device open)

OK. You'd know more about that than I ;)

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
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: 2006-08-25 10:29    [W:0.053 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site