From: Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Kernel-janitors] RE: [PATCH] cciss: replace schedule_timeout()
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:26:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <29495f1d04072316261ef44d9@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D4CFB69C345C394284E4B78B876C1CF107DBFB62@cceexc23.americas.cpqcorp.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1755 bytes --]
uOn Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:45:55 -0500, Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
<mike.miller@hp.com> wrote:
> You'll have to explain why msleep will guarantee the timeout period whereas
> schedule_timeout may not. Maybe I'm missing something.
Well, there are two things to consider here:
As a reference, the way the code was written before:
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- schedule_timeout(HZ / 10); /* wait 100ms */
1) Since the state is set to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, although a 100ms
delay is requested, if a signal is received, then the delay ends
prematurely and the task will resume after the schedule_timeout()
call. Now, if this was the desired effect, then the the patch should
not be applied.
2) However, if a true delay was desired, then TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
should not have been the set state, but TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE should
have been. This would have made the code:
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule_timeout(HZ / 10);
msleep() achieves this exact purpose, but also:
a) allows the parameter time to be in msecs, which is far clearer IMO; and
b) guarantees that the task will not continue execution until after
the timeout has expired. Confusingly (at least to me), there are
certain conditions -- the details of which I will have to defer to
Greg Kroah-Hartman -- in which TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE'd
schedule_timeout()s may still return before the timeout. The desired
delay is achieved by wrapping the schedule_timeout(timeout) with a
while(timeout) loop. Thus, as long as timeout is non-zero, the task is
deferred. (see msleep()s definition for more details).
Does that help some? Please mail again if you have more questions, or
if something I wrote was unclear.
-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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-23 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-23 22:45 [Kernel-janitors] RE: [PATCH] cciss: replace schedule_timeout() Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
2004-07-23 23:26 ` Nish Aravamudan [this message]
2004-07-28 22:51 ` Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
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=29495f1d04072316261ef44d9@mail.gmail.com \
--to=nish.aravamudan@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
/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.