From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/11] task_isolation: add initial support Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:23:39 +0200 Message-ID: <20151001122339.GD3432@lerouge> References: <1443453446-7827-1-git-send-email-cmetcalf@ezchip.com> <1443453446-7827-3-git-send-email-cmetcalf@ezchip.com> <20151001121414.GB3432@lerouge> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Chris Metcalf , Gilad Ben Yossef , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Tejun Heo , "Paul E. McKenney" , Christoph Lameter , Viresh Kumar , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Andy Lutomirski , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:18:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > > > + > > > + while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64) != KTIME_MAX) { > > > > You should add a function in tick-sched.c to get the next tick. This > > is supposed to be a private field. > > Just to make it clear. Neither the above nor a similar check in > tick-sched.c is going to happen. > > This busy waiting is just horrible. Get your act together and solve > the problems at the root and do not inflict your quick and dirty > 'solutions' on us. That's why I proposed a wait-wake scheme instead with the tick stop code. What's your opinion about such direction?