Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] adjust x86-64 watchdog tick calculation

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 00:51 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > > Because it kills machine when interrupt latency gets too high?
> > > > > Like reading battery status using i2c...
> > > > 
> > > > That's a bug in the I2C reader then. Don't shot the messenger for bad news.
> > > 
> > > Disagreed.
> > > 
> > > Linux is not real time OS. Perhaps some real-time constraints "may not
> > > spend > 100msec with interrupts disabled" would be healthy
> >              ^^^^
> > You mean "microseconds", right?  100ms will be perceived by the user as,
> > well, their machine freezing for 100ms...
> 
> I did mean miliseconds. IIRC current watchdog is at one second and it
> still triggers even in cases when operation just takes too long.

I thought there was an understanding that 1 ms would be the target for
desktop responsiveness.  So yes, disabling interrupts for more than 1ms
is considered a bug.

Why do you need to disable interrupts for 100ms to read the battery
status exactly?

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/