From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH] mv643xx_eth: fix SMI bus access timeouts Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:47:47 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20081101053220.GA13348@xi.wantstofly.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Lennert Buytenhek Return-path: Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]:9233 "EHLO sj-iport-6.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbYKAFrs (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 01:47:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081101053220.GA13348@xi.wantstofly.org> (Lennert Buytenhek's message of "Sat, 1 Nov 2008 06:32:20 +0100") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > If wait_event_timeout() would return zero, mv643xx_eth would conclude > that the SMI access timed out, but this is not necessarily true -- > wait_event_timeout() can also return zero in the case where the SMI > completion interrupt did happen in time but where it took longer than > the requested timeout for the process performing the SMI access to be > scheduled again. This would lead to occasional SMI access timeouts > when the system would be under heavy load. Would it make more sense to fix this in the wait_event_timeout() code itself a la bb10ed09 ("sched: fix wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious failure under heavy load")? - R.