From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Revell Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:19:11 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: disable preemption in udelay() Message-Id: <1134703152.12086.231.camel@mindpipe> List-Id: References: <20051214232526.9039.15753.sendpatchset@tomahawk.engr.sgi.com> <20051215225040.GA9086@agluck-lia64.sc.intel.com> <1134698636.12086.222.camel@mindpipe> <00b201c601e6$30c87ff0$d6069aa3@johnhaonw7lw1r> In-Reply-To: <00b201c601e6$30c87ff0$d6069aa3@johnhaonw7lw1r> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: John Hawkes Cc: Zwane Mwaikambo , "Luck, Tony" , Tony Luck , Andrew Morton , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jack Steiner , Keith Owens , Dimitri Sivanich On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 18:12 -0800, John Hawkes wrote: > From: "Lee Revell" > > There are 10 drivers that udelay(10000) or more and a TON that > > udelay(1000). Turning those all into 1ms+ non preemptible sections will > > be very bad. > > What about 100usec non-preemptible sections? That will disappear into the noise, in normal usage these happen all the time. 500usec non preemptible regions are rare (~1 hour to show up) and 1ms very rare (24 hours). My tests show that 300 usec or so is a good place to draw the line if you don't want it to show up in latency tests. Lee