From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:37:03 +1000
> > On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 14:06 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Note: I use msleep_interruptible(1); just like napi_disable(). However > > > I'm not too happy that the "hot" loop that results of a pending signal > > > here will spin without even a cpu_relax ... what do you guys think would > > > be the best way to handle this ? > > > > Well since the loop does not check signals at all, it should > > just use msleep. > > > > Granted the process will end up in the D state and contribute > > to the load average. But if this loop executes long enough > > for that to be noticed then we've got bigger problems to worry > > about. > > If Dave & Stephen agree, I'll send a patch changing napi_disable() too > then. I agree with the msleep() change. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
