mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: some thoughts about TSC based delay_tsc()
       [not found] ` <20071121192754.GA22769@elte.hu>
@ 2007-11-21 20:06   ` Marin Mitov
  2007-11-21 20:09     ` Ingo Molnar
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Marin Mitov @ 2007-11-21 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 09:27:54 pm you wrote:
> * Marin Mitov <mitov@issp.bas.bg> wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > The patch is quite good ;-) but we forget when it is needed :-( In
> > fact we need it only for PREEMPT SMP kernels - it could hurt PREEMPT
> > UP kernels (no migration possible), so no need for
> > preempt_disable()/preempt_enable().
> >
> > In short the old version of delay_tsc() is good for UP kernels and NON
> > PREEMPT SMP kernels too.
>
> please reply to the public list, so that discussions do not get lost.
>
> i dont think there's any problem: udelay() is about _wasting_ cycles -
> it's what drivers use for short delays.

Sure for the thread executing udelay(), but not for the other ready threads 
which should also wait till preempt_enable() to grab the same cpu even 
for PREEMPT (UP or SMP) kernels (or I misunderstand something?).

Marin 
>
> 	Ingo



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: some thoughts about TSC based delay_tsc()
  2007-11-21 20:06   ` some thoughts about TSC based delay_tsc() Marin Mitov
@ 2007-11-21 20:09     ` Ingo Molnar
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2007-11-21 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marin Mitov; +Cc: linux-kernel


* Marin Mitov <mitov@issp.bas.bg> wrote:

> On Wednesday 21 November 2007 09:27:54 pm you wrote:
> > * Marin Mitov <mitov@issp.bas.bg> wrote:
> > > Hi Ingo,
> > >
> > > The patch is quite good ;-) but we forget when it is needed :-( In 
> > > fact we need it only for PREEMPT SMP kernels - it could hurt 
> > > PREEMPT UP kernels (no migration possible), so no need for 
> > > preempt_disable()/preempt_enable().
> > >
> > > In short the old version of delay_tsc() is good for UP kernels and 
> > > NON PREEMPT SMP kernels too.
> >
> > please reply to the public list, so that discussions do not get lost.
> >
> > i dont think there's any problem: udelay() is about _wasting_ cycles -
> > it's what drivers use for short delays.
> 
> Sure for the thread executing udelay(), but not for the other ready 
> threads which should also wait till preempt_enable() to grab the same 
> cpu even for PREEMPT (UP or SMP) kernels (or I misunderstand 
> something?).

on non-PREEMPT kernels there's no real difference between old and and 
new code because the kernel is not preemptible. So we can use the new 
code unconditionally.

	Ingo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-11-21 20:10 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <200711212057.10465.mitov@issp.bas.bg>
     [not found] ` <20071121192754.GA22769@elte.hu>
2007-11-21 20:06   ` some thoughts about TSC based delay_tsc() Marin Mitov
2007-11-21 20:09     ` Ingo Molnar

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®