From: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com,
jirislaby@gmail.com, will.newton@gmail.com, hancockrwd@gmail.com,
jeremy@goop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event_timeout()
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:05:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ed82fe3e0903121205k552a83bft9ac3b63c64a293c8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1236876609.5090.934.camel@laptop>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> sched_clock() does that, but:
> - it falls back to jiffies on poor platforms
I think it's ok to fall back to jiffies where necessary, but these two
functions are too heavy-weight for my tastes.
> But something that seems to always work, is simply count loops and rely
> on whatever delay is in the specified loop.
>
> #define spin_until_timeout(condition, timeout, rc) \
> for (unsigned long __timeout = 0; \
> !(rc = (condition)) && __timeout < (timeout); \
> __timeout++)
But that's the thing - I don't want a required delay inside the loop.
I guess I'm going to have to think about this for a while. I'd like
to see something like cycles_per_usec() as a companion function to
get_cycles().
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-12 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-10 15:30 Timur Tabi
2009-03-10 15:35 ` Alan Cox
2009-03-10 15:50 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-10 16:05 ` Will Newton
2009-03-10 16:11 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-11 0:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-11 0:37 ` Alan Cox
2009-03-11 16:48 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-11 16:58 ` Alan Cox
2009-03-11 18:18 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-11 21:58 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-12 2:45 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-12 15:54 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-12 16:01 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-12 16:19 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-12 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-12 19:05 ` Timur Tabi [this message]
2009-03-13 3:03 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-13 4:51 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-10 18:41 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-10 19:04 ` Timur Tabi
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=ed82fe3e0903121205k552a83bft9ac3b63c64a293c8@mail.gmail.com \
--to=timur@freescale.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=hancockrwd@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=will.newton@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®