From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return value from schedule()
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:21:11 -0600
Message-ID: <20080904162111.GM2772@parisc-linux.org>
References: <20080827204626.4b65862f@extreme> <20080828111323.GI7908@solarflare.com> <20080903155713.7fab2e19@extreme> <20080904160739.GK2772@parisc-linux.org> <20080904161424.GA23042@elte.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Return-path: <linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080904161424.GA23042@elte.hu>
Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

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?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."