From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Alexander Nyberg <alexn@telia.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] adjust x86-64 watchdog tick calculation
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:56:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1116024993.6380.47.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050513225127.GB2016@elf.ucw.cz>
On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 00:51 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > Because it kills machine when interrupt latency gets too high?
> > > > > Like reading battery status using i2c...
> > > >
> > > > That's a bug in the I2C reader then. Don't shot the messenger for bad news.
> > >
> > > Disagreed.
> > >
> > > Linux is not real time OS. Perhaps some real-time constraints "may not
> > > spend > 100msec with interrupts disabled" would be healthy
> > ^^^^
> > You mean "microseconds", right? 100ms will be perceived by the user as,
> > well, their machine freezing for 100ms...
>
> I did mean miliseconds. IIRC current watchdog is at one second and it
> still triggers even in cases when operation just takes too long.
I thought there was an understanding that 1 ms would be the target for
desktop responsiveness. So yes, disabling interrupts for more than 1ms
is considered a bug.
Why do you need to disable interrupts for 100ms to read the battery
status exactly?
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-13 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-12 8:27 [PATCH] adjust x86-64 watchdog tick calculation Jan Beulich
2005-05-12 10:00 ` Alexander Nyberg
2005-05-12 11:46 ` [discuss] " Andi Kleen
2005-05-12 14:29 ` Pavel Machek
2005-05-13 11:30 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-13 19:52 ` Pavel Machek
2005-05-13 21:27 ` Lee Revell
2005-05-13 22:51 ` Pavel Machek
2005-05-13 22:56 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2005-05-13 23:21 ` Pavel Machek
2005-05-13 23:29 ` Dave Jones
2005-05-15 10:52 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-15 10:36 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-15 10:51 ` Pavel Machek
2005-05-15 10:54 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1116024993.6380.47.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=alexn@telia.com \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.