hi,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:52:51PM +0800, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
I think maybe it might be better to use units of microseconds and then
change sleep to usleep so the units are clear? This is a spinlock, so
it should be quick.
Sorry, I may not quite understand you, do you mean that milliseconds is not precise, so
should use microseconds? For these two patches, they do not use usleep or msleep to do
real sleep work, they just record the duration which process takes to wait bh_shadow flag
to be cleared or transaction to be unlocked.
Apologies, I should have been clear enough. Yes, my concern that
milliseconds might not be fine-grained enough. The sample results
which you showed had values of 2ms, 1ms, and 0ms. And the single 0ms
result in particular raised the concern that we should use a
microseconds instead of milliseconds.
In fact, instead of "sleep", maybe "latency(us)" or "latency(ms)"
would be a better label?
OK, I'll update a v2, thanks.
Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
Regards,
- Ted
