From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261395AbULNEPn (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:15:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261413AbULNEOh (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:14:37 -0500 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.200]:38819 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261395AbULNEG5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:06:57 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=jbInBGD8cNA8BXsTyRQVo2CuhRNmNZv5LAQXPpFW4WzA5YaW4HrVFHlLCaaSuAYTIiuD+zoD3QkZxMDY7kyBiFZEEFq4/I4y896/1v4lg37epYjdIWPEfz+BoAbc9uleZm99ObVp5xOU3ek2GBqK0h/6xuX6131hTwucEa0k3Yw= Message-ID: <29495f1d04121320061a2a5823@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:06:57 -0800 From: Nish Aravamudan Reply-To: Nish Aravamudan To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: dynamic-hz Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Hans Kristian Rosbach , Andrew Morton , Con Kolivas , andrea@suse.de, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20041213161207.GA27352@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20041211142317.GF16322@dualathlon.random> <20041212163547.GB6286@elf.ucw.cz> <20041212222312.GN16322@dualathlon.random> <41BCD5F3.80401@kolivas.org> <20041213030237.5b6f6178.akpm@osdl.org> <1102936790.17227.24.camel@linux.local> <20041213112229.GS6272@elf.ucw.cz> <1102942270.17225.81.camel@linux.local> <20041213161207.GA27352@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:12:07 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > HI! > > > > I'm not sure what the above "scedule_timeout(HZ/10)" is supposed to > > > do, but the parameter it gets in 1000hz is "100" so I assume this > > > is because we want to wait for 100ms, and in 1000hz that equals > > > 100 cycles. Correct? > > > > `schedule_timeout(HZ/x)' lets it wait for 1/x'th second. > > ...small problem is that for HZ lower than x it does not wait at all > :-(. Ah ha! Another reason to use msleep() or msleep_interruptible() :). Or, if you just want to give up the CPU, use schedule(); or if, giving up the CPU for a long time, use yield() [the current semantic interpretation of yield()]. -Nish