Re: [KJ] RE: [PATCH 3/22] block/cciss: replace schedule_timeout()

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1458 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 04:14:10PM -0600, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
> > From: Nishanth Aravamudan [mailto:nacc@us.ibm.com]
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Please consider applying.
> > 
> > I used msleep(10) here under the presumption that the 
> > schedule_timeout(1) was
> > written assuming that HZ=100 (as it used to be), which is
> > equivalent to 10 milliseconds. If the desire is actually for 
> > 1 ms or the minimal
> > sleep interval, then the patch can be changed appropriately. 
> > A similar assumption
> > as to the constant delay value was made in the other 
> > replacement, which can also
> > be appropriately adjusted.
> > 
> > Description: Change the delay logic in pollcomplete() to use 
> > msleep() and
> > time_before(). Instead of assuming schedule_timeout() will 
> > sleep exactly as
> > requested, use msleep(10) to guarantee minimally 10 
> > millisecond increments and
> > time_before() to guarantee stopping the loop as close to 20 
> > seconds as possible.
> > Also changes another occurrence of schedule_timeout() to msleep().
> > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE is used in this case, but signals are not handled. 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
> 
> I still fail to see the benefits of this patch.

When HZ changed from 100 to 1000, your code went from sleeping 10ms to 1
ms.  Did you really mean that?  This way, your code always sleeps what
you expect it to sleep, no matter what the value of HZ.

thanks,

greg k-h


[-- 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