From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return value from schedule() Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:30:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20080904103049.01f748d9@infradead.org> References: <20080827204626.4b65862f@extreme> <20080828111323.GI7908@solarflare.com> <20080903155713.7fab2e19@extreme> <20080904160739.GK2772@parisc-linux.org> <20080904161424.GA23042@elte.hu> <20080904162111.GM2772@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ben Hutchings , Jesse Barnes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger To: Matthew Wilcox Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080904162111.GM2772@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:21:11 -0600 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > If schedule() returned whether or not it had scheduled another > > > task, we could do something like: > > > > > > if (!schedule()) > > > udelay(10); > > > > hm, i'm not really sure - this really just seems to be a higher > > prio variant of yield() combined with some weird code. Do we really > > want to promote such arguably broken behavior? If there's any > > chance of any polling to take a material amount of CPU time it > > should be event driven to begin with. > > Oh, I'm not concerned about CPU utilisation, I'm concerned about PCI > bus utilisation. Perhaps I'd like a yield_timeout() function instead > where I say that I'd like to not run for at least 10 microseconds? > > Can we do that, or are we still jiffie-based there? > use schedule_hrtimerout() for this (hopefully will be in 2.6.28); see this weeks LWN for an article describing it