Re: [PATCH][RFC] time: add wait_interruptible_timeout macro to sleep (w. timeout) until wake_up

[RafaÅ MiÅecki]

W dniu 1 marca 2010 17:37 uÅytkownik Michel DÃnzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:33 +0100, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>> W dniu 26 lutego 2010 20:01 uÅytkownik Ville SyrjÃlà <syrjala@xxxxxx> napisaÅ:
>> > Disabling the condition check doesn't make sense.
>> >
>> > You could use a completion.
>> >
>> > init_completion(vbl_irq);
>> > enable_vbl_irq();
>> > wait_for_completion(vbl_irq);
>> > disable_vbl_irq();
>> > and call complete(vbl_irq) in the interrupt handler.
>> >
>> > The same would of course work with just some flag or counter
>> > and a wait queue.
>>
>> Ouch, I can see it gone bad already.
>>
>> Firstly I simply just wanted to avoid condition in wait_event_*. It
>> looked unnecessary as I got interrupts (signals).
>
> So this code runs in user process context? If so, it should return to
> userspace ASAP on signal receipt, otherwise e.g. smoothness of X mouse
> movement may suffer.
>
> If that's a problem, then maybe the code should run in a different
> context, e.g. a tasklet or some kind of worker kernel thread.

It has nothing to do with userspace. Please see my previous description:



W dniu 26 lutego 2010 13:16 uÅytkownik RafaÅ MiÅecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ:
> W dniu 26 lutego 2010 12:55 uÅytkownik Thomas Gleixner
>> Sleeping in the timer handler ? In which context runs this timer handler ?
>
> We have our struct delayed_work which we first init and then we use
> "queue_delayed_work" to start this "timer". So it's not real-real
> timer as struct timer_list.
>
> So this is actually delayed_work handler. Sorry (again) for my bad naming.



It's delayed_work.

-- 
RafaÅ
--
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/