On 02/28/2013 04:24 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >>> It would be nice if it _were_ a promise, but it is not, it's a hint. >> >> Bad to know :( >> >> Should we fix it or this is by designed? The comments after WF_SYNC >> cheated me... > > You can't fix it, because it's not busted. You can say "Ok guys, I'm > off for a nap RSN" all you want, but that won't guarantee that nobody > pokes you, and hands you something more useful to do than snoozing.
So sync still means current is going to sleep, what you concerned is this promise will be easily broken by other waker, correct? Hmm.. may be you are right, if 'perf bench sched pipe' is not the one we should care, I have no reason to add this logical currently. I will remove this plus branch, unless I found other benchmark could benefit a lot from it. Besides this, how do you think about this idea? Regards, Michael Wang > > -Mike > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
