From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Busy-waiting with interrupts disabled
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:47:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323730061.1377.13.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1112121617400.1864-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 17:12 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> How long is it okay to busy-wait with interrupts disabled? Are there
> any clear-cut guidelines?
>
> My feeling is that for ordinary desktop use, 1-2 ms should be about the
> limit, but other people may feel differently. (There's one spot in
> ehci-hcd where the delay can last up to 250 ms, which does seem rather
"250 ms", holy freaking OUCH! Batman!
> excessive. Fortunately it never takes that long unless the hardware is
> broken.)
>
> No doubt the RT people would say the upper bound should be on the order
> of a few microseconds or less. I'd be happy to change ehci-hcd, which
> has several delays in the 1-2 ms range -- but they tend to be nested
> inside routines that are called within the scope of spinlock_irq, which
> means a fair amount of rewriting would be needed.
>
> Any thoughts or recommendations?
Note that in -rt, spinlocks are really mutexes (unless they are
raw_spinlocks, which you shouldn't do). Thus, if your spin is with
spinlock_irq, it wont affect -rt, as it will not have interrupts
disabled.
But I could imagine that such a long latency could manifest itself into
something nasty (lots of interrupts queued up and such) that normal
desktop users might see a hiccup or two.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-12 22:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-12 22:12 Alan Stern
2011-12-12 22:47 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2011-12-12 23:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-12-12 23:18 ` Steve Calfee
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1323730061.1377.13.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®