From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nate Lawson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stall semantics Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20031001124334.X85655@root.org> References: <20031001093943.J85056@root.org> <20031001171657.GW24824@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20031001101854.J85056@root.org> <20031001185524.GX24824@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20031001185524.GX24824-+pPCBgu9SkPzIGdyhVEDUDl5KyyQGfY2kSSpQ9I8OhVaa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: "Moore, Robert" , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > I think the current ACPI behaviour is probably adequate -- accommodate > > > incopetent BIOS writers up to a point, then sleep, and damn them anyway. > > > > It damns us OS vendors a different way in that we get unacceptably long > > idle spin loops on some machines. Spinning for 1000 us is not correct any > > way you interpret the standard. > > You have a machine which isn't able to stall for 1 millisecond? The performance loss becomes more noticable when run repeatedly. A single 1 ms stall is not horrible. In any case, my latter statement is the point. -Nate ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf