Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:17:13 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix |
| |
Hi!
> >>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_. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/
|  |