Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:08:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:07:51 -0500 Received: from [194.65.152.209] ([194.65.152.209]:3249 "EHLO criticalsoftware.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 06:07:44 -0500 Message-Id: <200111211108.fALB8K291684@criticalsoftware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Lu=EDs=20Henriques?= To: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: copy to user Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:02:39 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011120144414.C1308@lynx.no> In-Reply-To: <20011120144414.C1308@lynx.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > If you put the process in (un)interruptible sleep in the kernel, won't this > be enough? This is different than SIGSTOP. Is the requirement that this > process not leave the kernel call, or that it is actually consuming CPU > cycles as well? The process needs to be using CPU time, however, there must be a chance to the scheduler to change the current process... if this occurs, than the delay has to be aborted. > > > About using udelay... this soluction seemed fine to me at first but if I > > hang the CPU with udelay the scheduler will no be doing it's job (isn't > > it?). This would give me even more intrusiveness (another requirement: > > the less intrusiveness as possible). > > It would probably work OK on an SMP system, since tasks can still be run > on the other CPU. > > Cheers, Andreas -- Lu?s Henriques - 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/