From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com,
jirislaby@gmail.com, will.newton@gmail.com, hancockrwd@gmail.com,
jeremy@goop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event_timeout()
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:50:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1236876609.5090.934.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49B9362D.3090805@freescale.com>
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 11:19 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > #define spin_until_timeout(condition, timeout, rc) \
> > for (unsigned long __timeout = jiffies + (timeout); \
> > (!(rc = (condition)) && time_after(jiffies, __timeout)); )
>
> Ooo, that's good.
>
> I'm still not crazy about using jiffies, since it doesn't get
> incremented when interrupts are disabled, and I'd like this function to
> work in those cases. How about get_cycles()? I know it's not supported
> on all platforms, but I'm willing to live with that.
>
> The other problem with get_cycles() is that there doesn't appear to be a
> num_cycles_per_usec() function, so there's no way for me to scale the
> count to a fixed time period.
sched_clock() does that, but:
- it falls back to jiffies on poor platforms
- it requires to be called with IRQs disabled
- it can basically jump any random way on funky hardware
then there is cpu_clock(int cpu):
- still falls back to jiffies on poor platforms
- is monotonic when used on the same cpu
- can drift up to a few jiffies when used between cpus
But something that seems to always work, is simply count loops and rely
on whatever delay is in the specified loop.
#define spin_until_timeout(condition, timeout, rc) \
for (unsigned long __timeout = 0; \
!(rc = (condition)) && __timeout < (timeout); \
__timeout++)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-12 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-10 15:30 [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event_timeout() Timur Tabi
2009-03-10 15:35 ` Alan Cox
2009-03-10 15:50 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-10 16:05 ` Will Newton
2009-03-10 16:11 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-11 0:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-11 0:37 ` Alan Cox
2009-03-11 16:48 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-11 16:58 ` Alan Cox
2009-03-11 18:18 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-11 21:58 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-12 2:45 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-12 15:54 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-12 16:01 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-12 16:19 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-12 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-03-12 19:05 ` Timur Tabi
2009-03-13 3:03 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-03-13 4:51 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-10 18:41 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-10 19:04 ` Timur Tabi
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=1236876609.5090.934.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=hancockrwd@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=timur@freescale.com \
--cc=will.newton@gmail.com \
/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.