From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:42393 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965072AbWBGTPz (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:15:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:14:18 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] Fix spinlock debugging delays to not time out too early Message-ID: <20060207191418.GA28414@elte.hu> References: <200602071929.24762.ak@muc.de> <20060207184435.GA18589@agluck-lia64.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060207184435.GA18589@agluck-lia64.sc.intel.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Andi Kleen , akpm@osdl.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Luck, Tony wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:29:24PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > For this case that would be ok, as long as it isn't a hour or so, > > but let's say < 1 minute. > > About 9.7 seconds on ia64 for: > > for (i = 0; i < loops_per_jiffy * HZ; i++) { > __delay(1); > } > > so yes, well under a minute. yeah, that's good enough. We want to have a minimum delay of 1 second, because otherwise we'd be getting false positives under high load (and under some bad drivers). Having a larger delay is not an issue, as long as it's below the average hit-reset latency of users ;) i'd expect the HPET-based __delay(1) to be the heaviest. Ingo