Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933614AbYBUQmu (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:42:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765118AbYBUQmE (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:42:04 -0500 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:35741 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755411AbYBUQmA (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:42:00 -0500 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Gregory Haskins Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 08/14] add a loop counter based timeout mechanism Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:41:09 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bill.huey@gmail.com, kevin@hilman.org, cminyard@mvista.com, dsingleton@mvista.com, dwalker@mvista.com, npiggin@suse.de, dsaxena@plexity.net, gregkh@suse.de, sdietrich@novell.com, pmorreale@novell.com, mkohari@novell.com References: <20080221152504.4804.8724.stgit@novell1.haskins.net> <20080221152707.4804.59177.stgit@novell1.haskins.net> In-Reply-To: <20080221152707.4804.59177.stgit@novell1.haskins.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802211741.10299.ak@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1187 Lines: 29 > +config RTLOCK_DELAY > + int "Default delay (in loops) for adaptive rtlocks" > + range 0 1000000000 > + depends on ADAPTIVE_RTLOCK I must say I'm not a big fan of putting such subtle configurable numbers into Kconfig. Compilation is usually the wrong place to configure such a thing. Just having it as a sysctl only should be good enough. > + default "10000" Perhaps you can expand how you came up with that default number? It looks suspiciously round and worse the actual spin time depends a lot on the CPU frequency (so e.g. a 3Ghz CPU will likely behave quite differently from a 2Ghz CPU) Did you experiment with other spin times? Should it be scaled with number of CPUs? And at what point is real time behaviour visibly impacted? Most likely it would be better to switch to something that is more absolute time, like checking RDTSC every few iteration similar to what udelay does. That would be at least constant time. -Andi -- 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/