On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:21:11 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
