[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> damn, i first wrote up an explanation about why that ugly __delay(1) is
> there (it almost hurts my eyes when i look at it!) but then deleted it
> as superfluous :-/

I'm fine with a delay, but the __delay(1) is simply not "correct". It
doesn't do anything.

"udelay()" waits for a certain time. Use that.

> the reason for the __delay(1) was really mundane: to be able to figure
> out when to print a 'we locked up' message to the user.

No it does not.

You may think it does, but it does nothing of the sort.

Use "udelay()" or somethign that actually takes a *time*.

Just __delay() is nothing but a loop, and calling it with an argument of 1
is stupid and buggy.

The only *possibly* valid use of "__delay()" implies using a counter that
is based on the "loops_per_sec" thing, which depends on what the delay
function actually is.

For example, the delay function may well turn out to be this:

__asm__ __volatile__(
"\tjmp 1f\n"
".align 16\n"
"1:\tjmp 2f\n"
".align 16\n"
"2:\tdecl %0\n\tjns 2b"
:"=&a" (d0)
:"0" (loops));

Notice? "Your code, it does nothing!"

When I said that the code was buggy, I meant it.

It has nothing to do with spinlocks. And "__delay(1)" is *always* a bug.

You migth want to replace it with


instead, at which point it *does* something: it has that read barrier
(which is not actually needed on x86, but whatever), and it has a delay
that is *meaningful*.

A plain "__delay(1)" is neither.

So let me repeat my statement: "What a piece of crap".

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: 2007-06-21 22:53    [W:0.244 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site