From: "Michel Dänzer" <michel@daenzer.net>
To: "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
DRI <dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] time: add wait_interruptible_timeout macro to sleep (w. timeout) until wake_up
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:37:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1267461438.5157.9586.camel@thor.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b170af451002270133v6c44a6bcnf5751a6338c61a63@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:33 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> W dniu 26 lutego 2010 20:01 użytkownik Ville Syrjälä <syrjala@sci.fi> napisał:
> > Disabling the condition check doesn't make sense.
> >
> > You could use a completion.
> >
> > init_completion(vbl_irq);
> > enable_vbl_irq();
> > wait_for_completion(vbl_irq);
> > disable_vbl_irq();
> > and call complete(vbl_irq) in the interrupt handler.
> >
> > The same would of course work with just some flag or counter
> > and a wait queue.
>
> Ouch, I can see it gone bad already.
>
> Firstly I simply just wanted to avoid condition in wait_event_*. It
> looked unnecessary as I got interrupts (signals).
So this code runs in user process context? If so, it should return to
userspace ASAP on signal receipt, otherwise e.g. smoothness of X mouse
movement may suffer.
If that's a problem, then maybe the code should run in a different
context, e.g. a tasklet or some kind of worker kernel thread.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-01 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-21 14:10 [PATCH][RFC] time: add wait_interruptible_timeout macro to sleep (w. timeout) until wake_up Rafał Miłecki
2010-02-21 15:01 ` Thomas Hellstrom
2010-02-21 15:50 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-02-24 22:33 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-02-26 10:38 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-02-26 11:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-02-26 12:16 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-02-26 16:14 ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-26 17:33 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-02-26 19:01 ` Ville Syrjälä
2010-02-27 9:33 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-03-01 16:37 ` Michel Dänzer [this message]
2010-03-02 20:32 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-02-27 1:04 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1267461438.5157.9586.camel@thor.local \
--to=michel@daenzer.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=zajec5@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox