On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 15:38 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 28/06/16 14:53, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On ti, 2016-06-28 at 14:29 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > On 28/06/16 13:19, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > On ti, 2016-06-28 at 12:51 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin
> > >
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 03:40:24PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 28/06/16 15:14, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:55:28PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>>How would you implement it with cpu_clock? What would
On 28/06/16 14:53, Imre Deak wrote:
On ti, 2016-06-28 at 14:29 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 28/06/16 13:19, Imre Deak wrote:
On ti, 2016-06-28 at 12:51 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
usleep_range is not recommended for waits shorten than 10us.
Make the wait_for_us use
On 28/06/16 15:14, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:55:28PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
How would you implement it with cpu_clock? What would you do when
re-scheduled?
unsigned long base;
int cpu;
int ret;
preempt_
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:55:28PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > How would you implement it with cpu_clock? What would you do when
> > re-scheduled?
>
> unsigned long base;
> int cpu;
> int ret;
>
> preempt_disable();
> cpu = smp_
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> How would you implement it with cpu_clock? What would you do when
> re-scheduled?
unsigned long base;
int cpu;
int ret;
preempt_disable();
cpu = smp_processor_id();
base = local_clock() >> 10;
for (;;) {
u64 now = local_clo
On ti, 2016-06-28 at 14:29 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 28/06/16 13:19, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On ti, 2016-06-28 at 12:51 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin
> > >
> > > usleep_range is not recommended for waits shorten than 10us.
> > >
> > > Make the wait_for_us use the a
On 28/06/16 13:19, Imre Deak wrote:
On ti, 2016-06-28 at 12:51 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
usleep_range is not recommended for waits shorten than 10us.
Make the wait_for_us use the atomic variant for such waits.
To do so we need to disable the !in_atomic warning for su
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:51:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin
>
> usleep_range is not recommended for waits shorten than 10us.
>
> Make the wait_for_us use the atomic variant for such waits.
>
> To do so we need to disable the !in_atomic warning for such uses
> and also
On ti, 2016-06-28 at 12:51 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin
>
> usleep_range is not recommended for waits shorten than 10us.
>
> Make the wait_for_us use the atomic variant for such waits.
>
> To do so we need to disable the !in_atomic warning for such uses
> and also disable
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
usleep_range is not recommended for waits shorten than 10us.
Make the wait_for_us use the atomic variant for such waits.
To do so we need to disable the !in_atomic warning for such uses
and also disable preemption since the macro is written in a way
to only be safe to be us
11 matches
Mail list logo
