From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
To: Margit Schubert-While <margitsw@t-online.de>,
netdev@oss.sgi.com, kj <kernel-janitors@osdl.org>
Subject: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:09:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040902160948.GA1944@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040902082432.GA1876@stro.at>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1081 bytes --]
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:24:33AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004, Margit Schubert-While wrote:
>
> > I agree with Jean and add the following :
> > You are assuming HZ = 1000.
> > In 2.4, HZ = 100 (And in 2.6, HZ is not necessarily = 1000).
As the original author of the patches, I feel I should interject . . .
Why/Where do you see an assumption about the value of HZ? The conversion
of the parameter to schedule_timeout() from jiffies to msecs is the only
place I can see where that might appear to be the case. But, upon closer
examination, there is no such assumption:
1000 = the number of milliseconds in a second.
HZ = the number of jiffies in a second (regardless of architecture)
In the original code for prism54/islpci_dev.c:
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout(50*HZ/1000);
Thus, to convert (50*HZ/1000) from jiffies to msecs, multiply by 1000
and divide by HZ, or:
50*HZ/1000 jiffies * 1000/HZ msecs/jiffie = 50 msecs.
And thus, in the patched code, the above becomes:
msleep(50);
Does that clear things up?
-Nish
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
To: Margit Schubert-While <margitsw@t-online.de>,
netdev@oss.sgi.com, kj <kernel-janitors@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:09:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040902160948.GA1944@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040902082432.GA1876@stro.at>
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:24:33AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004, Margit Schubert-While wrote:
>
> > I agree with Jean and add the following :
> > You are assuming HZ = 1000.
> > In 2.4, HZ = 100 (And in 2.6, HZ is not necessarily = 1000).
As the original author of the patches, I feel I should interject . . .
Why/Where do you see an assumption about the value of HZ? The conversion
of the parameter to schedule_timeout() from jiffies to msecs is the only
place I can see where that might appear to be the case. But, upon closer
examination, there is no such assumption:
1000 = the number of milliseconds in a second.
HZ = the number of jiffies in a second (regardless of architecture)
In the original code for prism54/islpci_dev.c:
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout(50*HZ/1000);
Thus, to convert (50*HZ/1000) from jiffies to msecs, multiply by 1000
and divide by HZ, or:
50*HZ/1000 jiffies * 1000/HZ msecs/jiffie = 50 msecs.
And thus, in the patched code, the above becomes:
msleep(50);
Does that clear things up?
-Nish
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-02 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-02 6:50 [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Margit Schubert-While
2004-09-02 8:24 ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace maximilian attems
2004-09-02 8:24 ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() maximilian attems
2004-09-02 16:09 ` Nishanth Aravamudan [this message]
2004-09-02 16:09 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-09-02 9:35 Margit Schubert-While
2004-09-02 10:03 ` [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace maximilian attems
2004-09-02 16:23 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
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=20040902160948.GA1944@us.ibm.com \
--to=nacc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@osdl.org \
--cc=margitsw@t-online.de \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.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.