On Sun, 28 May 2006 19:57:40 +0200 Roland Scheidegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rune Petersen wrote: > >> Hmm, interesting. This problem does not appear to be r300 specific, > >> radeon/r200 use the same code (haven't seen problems with it, though). > >> That said, it looks to me like that ioctl will actually never return > >> EAGAIN, maybe the original intention was to just wait indefinitely on > >> EBUSY instead of EAGAIN? > > > > I would agree, but mu knowledge is limited. > So is mine... > > >> (e.g. while (ret && (errno == EINTR || errno == EBUSY));) > >> And by looking at it, does it make sense that the timeout value in the > >> kernel depends on the kernel-of-the-day HZ value, rather than some > >> hardware-dependant (probably fixed) value? > > > > Isn't the timeout value dependent on HZ? > > 3*HZ is always 3 seconds no matter what HZ is (provided its the same > > value used to compile the kernel). > Ah right. I think I misinterpreted something. That said, 3 seconds > sounds like a rather long time, why would there still be timeouts? Its not that long time for a benchmark. It should probably be infinite if no hw lock is being held. Lock should be dropped in case of longer waits so that user is given a chance to stop the process. -- Aapo Tahkola ------------------------------------------------------- All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642 -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
