On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:58:51PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > /*
> > * TODO: Make sure that we wait at least required delay but why we
> > * have to extend it one tick more?
> > */
> >
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:58:51PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> /*
>* TODO: Make sure that we wait at least required delay but why we
>* have to extend it one tick more?
>*/
> schedule_timeout_interruptible(msecs_to_jiffies(delay) + 2);
What makes me sad is that
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:25:48 +0100 Peter Zijlstra
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:44:38AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > We have loops that have
> > timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout)
> > in the middle and if we change the semantics of schedule_timeout() to round
> > up, those loops could
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:49:02PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:42:09 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > I briefly talked to Thomas about this earlier today and we need to fix
> > this at a lower level -- the quick 'n dirty solution is to add 1 jiffy
> > down in the
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:44:38AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> We have loops that have
> timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout)
> in the middle and if we change the semantics of schedule_timeout() to round
> up, those loops could wait quite a bit longer than expected.
Depends on what you expect;
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:44:38AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
We have loops that have
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout)
in the middle and if we change the semantics of schedule_timeout() to round
up, those loops could wait quite a bit longer than expected.
Depends on what you expect; most
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:49:02PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:42:09 +0100
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
I briefly talked to Thomas about this earlier today and we need to fix
this at a lower level -- the quick 'n dirty solution is to add 1 jiffy
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:25:48 +0100 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:44:38AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
We have loops that have
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout)
in the middle and if we change the semantics of schedule_timeout() to round
up, those
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:58:51PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
/*
* TODO: Make sure that we wait at least required delay but why we
* have to extend it one tick more?
*/
schedule_timeout_interruptible(msecs_to_jiffies(delay) + 2);
What makes me sad is that
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:58:51PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
/*
* TODO: Make sure that we wait at least required delay but why we
* have to extend it one tick more?
*/
schedule_timeout_interruptible(msecs_to_jiffies(delay)
* Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:42:09 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > I briefly talked to Thomas about this earlier today and we need to
> > fix this at a lower level -- the quick 'n dirty solution is to add
> > 1 jiffy down in the timer-wheel when we enqueue these
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:42:09 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I briefly talked to Thomas about this earlier today and we need to fix
> this at a lower level -- the quick 'n dirty solution is to add 1 jiffy
> down in the timer-wheel when we enqueue these things.
That can lead to situations like the
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:27:46 -0800 Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:06:03 +1100 NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > It would be reasonable to assume that
> >
> > wait_for_completion_timeout(>auxadc_done,
> > msecs_to_jiffies(5));
> >
> > would wait at least 5 msecs for the auxadc_done
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:27:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:06:03 +1100 NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > It would be reasonable to assume that
> >
> > wait_for_completion_timeout(>auxadc_done,
> > msecs_to_jiffies(5));
> >
> > would wait at least 5 msecs for the
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:06:03 +1100 NeilBrown wrote:
> It would be reasonable to assume that
>
> wait_for_completion_timeout(>auxadc_done, msecs_to_jiffies(5));
>
> would wait at least 5 msecs for the auxadc_done to complete. But it does not.
> With a HZ of 200 or less,
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:06:03 +1100 NeilBrown ne...@suse.de wrote:
It would be reasonable to assume that
wait_for_completion_timeout(wm8350-auxadc_done, msecs_to_jiffies(5));
would wait at least 5 msecs for the auxadc_done to complete. But it does not.
With a HZ of 200 or less,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:27:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:06:03 +1100 NeilBrown ne...@suse.de wrote:
It would be reasonable to assume that
wait_for_completion_timeout(wm8350-auxadc_done,
msecs_to_jiffies(5));
would wait at least 5 msecs for the
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:27:46 -0800 Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:06:03 +1100 NeilBrown ne...@suse.de wrote:
It would be reasonable to assume that
wait_for_completion_timeout(wm8350-auxadc_done,
msecs_to_jiffies(5));
would wait at
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:42:09 +0100
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
I briefly talked to Thomas about this earlier today and we need to fix
this at a lower level -- the quick 'n dirty solution is to add 1 jiffy
down in the timer-wheel when we enqueue these things.
That can lead to
* Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:42:09 +0100
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
I briefly talked to Thomas about this earlier today and we need to
fix this at a lower level -- the quick 'n dirty solution is to add
1 jiffy down in the timer-wheel
It would be reasonable to assume that
wait_for_completion_timeout(>auxadc_done, msecs_to_jiffies(5));
would wait at least 5 msecs for the auxadc_done to complete. But it does not.
With a HZ of 200 or less, msecs_to_jiffies(5) has value '1', and so this
will only wait until the next
It would be reasonable to assume that
wait_for_completion_timeout(wm8350-auxadc_done, msecs_to_jiffies(5));
would wait at least 5 msecs for the auxadc_done to complete. But it does not.
With a HZ of 200 or less, msecs_to_jiffies(5) has value '1', and so this
will only wait until the next
22 matches
Mail list logo
