mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@dell.com>
To: Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	minyard@acm.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] ipmi: add timer thread
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:27:18 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051023212718.GA23212@lists.us.dell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29495f1d0510231412n41ab2d27y41f13a9c9e62b0c2@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 02:12:51PM -0700, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> On 10/23/05, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> > The first call to schedule_timeout() here will not actually sleep at all,
> > due to it being in state TASK_RUNNING.  Is that deliberate?

Wasn't intentional, but doesn't really matter.

> > Also, this thread can exit in state TASK_INTERUPTIBLE.  That's not a bug
> > per-se, but apparently it'll spit a warning in some of the patches which
> > Ingo is working on.  I don't know why, but I'm sure there's a good reason
> > ;)
> 
> You beat me to this one, Andrew! :) Both issue can be avoided by using
> schedule_timeout_interruptible().

OK.
 
> Additionally, I think the last variable is simply being used to switch
> between a 0 and 1 jiffy sleep (took me a while to figure that out in
> GMail sadly -- any chance the variable could be renamed?). In the
> current implementaion of schedule_timeout(), these will result in the
> same behavior, expiring the timer at the next timer interrupt (the
> next jiffy increment is the first time we'll notice we had a timer in
> the past to expire). Not sure if that's the intent and perhaps just a
> means to indicate what is desired (a sleep will still occur, even
> though a udelay() has already in the loop, for instance), but wanted
> to make sure.

I think I need to move the schedule_timeout_interruptable() into the
else clause, not at the top of the loop, as that's really the only
case where I want it to sleep.  In a former version of the patch, the
SI_SM_CALL_WITH_DELAY was supposed to be a 1-jiffy delay, while the
else clause was a several-jiffy delay.  However, that lead to most
commands still taking too long to complete, hence the CALL_WITH_DELAY
case became a udelay(1).

I'll code up and test a patch that does this, and will send that ASAP.

Thanks,
Matt

-- 
Matt Domsch
Software Architect
Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com

  reply	other threads:[~2005-10-23 21:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-21 14:58 Corey Minyard
2005-10-23 20:49 ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-23 21:12   ` Nish Aravamudan
2005-10-23 21:27     ` Matt Domsch [this message]
2005-10-24 20:11     ` George Anzinger
2005-10-24 20:31       ` [PATCH 2.6.14-rc5-mm1] ipmi: use kthread API Matt Domsch

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=20051023212718.GA23212@lists.us.dell.com \
    --to=matt_domsch@dell.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=minyard@acm.org \
    --cc=nish.aravamudan@gmail.com \
    /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

Powered by JetHome