Hi, Xie
On 07/01/2013 07:26 PM, Xie XiuQi wrote:
[snip]
> Here is the kthread main logic. Although it's not a good idea, but it does
> exist:
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> /* call schedule every 1 sec */
> if (HZ <= jiffies - last) {
> last = jiffies;
> schedule();
> }
>
> /* get data and sent it */
> get_msg();
> send_msg();
What about use cond_resched() here? Isn't that more gentle?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> if (kthread_should_stop())
> break;
> }
>
>> That said, accounting funnies induced by skipped update are possible,
>> which could trump the cycle savings I suppose, so maybe savings (sniff)
>> should just go away?
>
> Indeed, removing the skip_clock_update could resolve the issue, but I found
> there is no this issue in preempt mode. However, if remove skip_clock_update
> we'll get more precise time account.
>
> So, what's your opinion, 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/
