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
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,
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo