Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268269AbUJVWwE (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:52:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268265AbUJVWtx (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:49:53 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:3821 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268269AbUJVWtL (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:49:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:49:24 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Paul Mackerras , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel list Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC32: Fix cpu voltage change delay Message-ID: <20041022224924.GD11126@us.ibm.com> References: <16744.45392.781083.565926@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20041022180117.GA2162@us.ibm.com> <1098484464.11740.77.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1098484464.11740.77.camel@gaston> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.9-rc4 (i686) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1478 Lines: 29 On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 08:34:24AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 04:01, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > While looking through the latest bk changelogs, I noticed that you had > > submitted this patch using msleep(). When I read the comment, though, > > that you were offsetting the 1 millisecond with a jiffy, I was slightly > > confused as msleep() is designed to sleep for *at least* the time > > requested. So if you just use msleep(1) in these cases, you should have > > the desired effect. msleep() is designed to be independent of HZ (as the > > timeout is specified in non-jiffy units). Not using the > > jiffies_to_msecs() macro would remove some extra instructions... The > > attached patch makes this change (on top of your patch currently in bk7) > > and also changes the other schedule_timeout()s (at least, those that can > > be) to msleep. > > No, please leave them as-is at least for now... Last we saw, there was > a potential issue with schedule_timeout(1) itself not guaranteeing it would > sleep for an entire jiffie, but only up to the next jiffie... Ah, ok. Sorry, I was not aware of this issue. Would you mind giving me more details (off-list, if you'd prefer?). Thanks, Nish - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/