Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:10:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:10:46 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:19474 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:10:35 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:13:20 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: "Richard B. Johnson" cc: Linux kernel Subject: Re: schedule() In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > > I just read on this list that: > > while(something) > { > current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD; > schedule(); > } > > Will no longer be allowed in a kernel module! If this is true, how > do I loop, waiting for a bit in a port, without wasting CPU time? > > A lot of hardware does not generate interrupts upon a condition, > there is no CPU activity that could send a wake_up_interruptible() > to something sleeping. > > For instance, I need to write data to a hardware FIFO, one long-word > at a time, but I can't just write. I have to wait for a bit to be > set or reset for each and every write. I'm going to be burning a > lot of CPU cycles if I can't schedule() while the trickle-down-effect > of the hardware is happening. What did it do yield() to you ? Doesn't it work for your case ? - Davide - 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/