From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/39] sound/vx_core: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:10:23 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20050121194731.GK3340@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from Cantor.suse.de (mail-ex.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) by alsa.alsa-project.org (ALSA's E-mail Delivery System) with ESMTP id AF124268 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:10:32 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: <20050121194731.GK3340@us.ibm.com> Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: perex@suse.cz, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:47:31 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > Hi, > > Please consider applying. > > Description: Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task > delays as expected. The check for xmsec >= 1000 / HZ seems wrong to me, as well, > since if HZ==100, that means we could mdelay() for 9 msecs! Yes, and that's intentional. Originally there were places to call like snd_vx_delay(1) for just 1 or 2 ms in a long loop. The loop calls schedule() occasionally to take control back. So, we didn't want to do schedule_timeout(1) for HZ=100 in such a case. This results in 10 times longer loop execution. > msleep() should be > usable in all cases when not in an interrupt handler. I agree in general, but, msleep() isn't always a replacement of mdelay() if the delay time really matters. Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:10:23 +0000 Subject: [KJ] Re: [Alsa-devel] [PATCH 30/39] sound/vx_core: replace Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============56751150993483668==" List-Id: References: <20050121194731.GK3340@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20050121194731.GK3340@us.ibm.com> To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: perex@suse.cz, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org --===============56751150993483668== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII At Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:47:31 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > Hi, > > Please consider applying. > > Description: Use msleep() instead of schedule_timeout() to guarantee the task > delays as expected. The check for xmsec >= 1000 / HZ seems wrong to me, as well, > since if HZ==100, that means we could mdelay() for 9 msecs! Yes, and that's intentional. Originally there were places to call like snd_vx_delay(1) for just 1 or 2 ms in a long loop. The loop calls schedule() occasionally to take control back. So, we didn't want to do schedule_timeout(1) for HZ=100 in such a case. This results in 10 times longer loop execution. > msleep() should be > usable in all cases when not in an interrupt handler. I agree in general, but, msleep() isn't always a replacement of mdelay() if the delay time really matters. Takashi --===============56751150993483668== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============56751150993483668==--