On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 09:40:35AM -0600, Rocky Craig wrote: > Regarding the meat of the patch: > > >- udelay(1); > >+ schedule(); > > > > > We're still double-checking this on our ia64 platforms (which were > showing 5-10% CPU on that thread). > > Doesn't this schedule() call negate the speedup sought by the > extra thread in the first place?
That was my concern as well, but testing shows it has no significant impact on performance. > What about keeping the udelay > but making it multiples of HZ? You can't busy-wait that long. You can schedule_timeout_interruptable(N*HZ), but that isn't what we want to do here. -- Matt Domsch Software Architect Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
