[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix

> >>We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and
> >>which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are
> >>for hardware and not needed for virtualization.
> >>
> >
> >Which is irrelevant since the hardware drivers won't be used in a
> >virtualised environment with any kind of performance optimisation.
> >
> Which is why an audit is irrelevant for the most part. Note on the
> performance below.

You know it is ugly. Alan demonstrated it even hurts performance, but
being ugly is the main problem.

If you _need_ to avoid udelay() in some cases, introduce
udelay_unless_virtualized(), and switch few users to it. Just globaly
defining udelay to nop is _ugly_.
(cesky, pictures)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-15 11:21    [W:0.170 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site