Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-09 Thread Ivan Khoronzhuk
4:51 PM *To:* Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) *Cc:* Bill Fischofer; LNG ODP Mailman List *Subject:* Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check On 7 September 2015 at 14:59, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <petri.savolai...@nokia.com <mailto:petri.s

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-07 Thread Ola Liljedahl
On 4 September 2015 at 15:36, Bill Fischofer wrote: > That's saying that a specific worker has knowledge of what events it > should be receiving and when. The whole point of event scheduling is that > an individual worker thread is not aware of such considerations,

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-07 Thread Ola Liljedahl
intenance. > > -Petri > > > > > > *From:* lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] *On Behalf Of *ext > Ola Liljedahl > *Sent:* Monday, September 07, 2015 3:36 PM > *To:* Bill Fischofer > *Cc:* LNG ODP Mailman List > *Subject:* Re: [lng-odp] [Patc

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-07 Thread Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
From: ext Ola Liljedahl [mailto:ola.liljed...@linaro.org] Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 4:51 PM To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) Cc: Bill Fischofer; LNG ODP Mailman List Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check On 7 September 2015 at 14:59, Savolainen

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-07 Thread Bill Fischofer
om:* ext Ola Liljedahl [mailto:ola.liljed...@linaro.org] >>> *Sent:* Monday, September 07, 2015 4:51 PM >>> *To:* Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) >>> *Cc:* Bill Fischofer; LNG ODP Mailman List >>> *Subject:* Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler:

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-07 Thread Bill Fischofer
schofer; LNG ODP Mailman List > *Subject:* Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time > check > > > > On 7 September 2015 at 14:59, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < > petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > Scheduler timeout (wait time) enable

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-07 Thread Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
Fischofer Cc: LNG ODP Mailman List Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check On 4 September 2015 at 15:36, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org<mailto:bill.fischo...@linaro.org>> wrote: That's saying that a specific worker has knowledge of what even

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-04 Thread Ivan Khoronzhuk
Bill, On 04.09.15 05:46, Bill Fischofer wrote: The time waiting is of dubious value (and portability) in a system with dedicated worker threads. What else are they planning to do? Is that the best design for the application? There are valid common uses for ODP_SCHED_WAIT and

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-04 Thread Bill Fischofer
My point wasn't about the validation test but about the utility of the variable timeout feature of the API itself. Can anyone really come up with a use case where Wait for X, 2X, 3X have distinct meanings such that a worker thread would choose one vs. another? In a portable manner? Exactly what

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-04 Thread Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin
It could send some packet or simply handle an error case (packet should have arrived now, something went wrong?) All this could be probably implemented by the user with timers and make the code better, but programmers are lazy and variable timeout is very easy to use and much lighter than

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-04 Thread Bill Fischofer
That's saying that a specific worker has knowledge of what events it should be receiving and when. The whole point of event scheduling is that an individual worker thread is not aware of such considerations, but simply process events that are scheduled to it. What you're describing is an

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-03 Thread Ivan Khoronzhuk
On 03.09.15 09:20, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: On 09/02/2015 11:16 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: On 02.09.15 12:42, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: On 08/26/2015 05:47 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: On 26.08.15 18:22, Stuart Haslam wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:11:13PM +0300,

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-03 Thread Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin
On 09/02/2015 11:16 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > > > On 02.09.15 12:42, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: >> >> On 08/26/2015 05:47 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 26.08.15 18:22, Stuart Haslam wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:11:13PM +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > It's

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-03 Thread Bill Fischofer
The time waiting is of dubious value (and portability) in a system with dedicated worker threads. What else are they planning to do? Is that the best design for the application? There are valid common uses for ODP_SCHED_WAIT and ODP_SCHED_NO_WAIT. Everything else is questionable. Periodic

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-02 Thread Ivan Khoronzhuk
On 02.09.15 12:42, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: On 08/26/2015 05:47 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: On 26.08.15 18:22, Stuart Haslam wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:11:13PM +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: It's needed because time resolution can be a little more than 1ns and in this case

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-09-02 Thread Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin
On 08/26/2015 05:47 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > > > On 26.08.15 18:22, Stuart Haslam wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:11:13PM +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: >>> It's needed because time resolution can be a little more than 1ns >>> and in this case odp_schedule_wait_time(1) returns 0, and test

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-08-27 Thread Stuart Haslam
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:47:59PM +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: On 26.08.15 18:22, Stuart Haslam wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:11:13PM +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: It's needed because time resolution can be a little more than 1ns and in this case odp_schedule_wait_time(1) returns 0,

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-08-26 Thread Ivan Khoronzhuk
On 26.08.15 18:22, Stuart Haslam wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:11:13PM +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: It's needed because time resolution can be a little more than 1ns and in this case odp_schedule_wait_time(1) returns 0, and test generates warn w/o reason. So increase scheduler wait time

[lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-08-26 Thread Ivan Khoronzhuk
It's needed because time resolution can be a little more than 1ns and in this case odp_schedule_wait_time(1) returns 0, and test generates warn w/o reason. So increase scheduler wait time check from 1ns to 100ns. It's hard to imagine time source with resolution more than 100ns, so every

Re: [lng-odp] [Patch] validation: scheduler: increase time check

2015-08-26 Thread Stuart Haslam
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:11:13PM +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: It's needed because time resolution can be a little more than 1ns and in this case odp_schedule_wait_time(1) returns 0, and test generates warn w/o reason. So increase scheduler wait time check from 1ns to 100ns. It's hard to