[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfs-masters] [patch 2/2] fs/xfs_super: replace schedule_timeout() w

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [patch 2/2] fs/xfs_super: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep_interruptible()
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:20:31 -0800
Cc: domen@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050308000114.GG720@frodo>
References: <20050306104000.A71391F204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050308000114.GG720@frodo>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:01:14AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:40:00AM +0100, domen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> > Use msleep_interruptible() instead of schedule_timeout(). The
> > current code is not wrong; however a change to msleep_interruptible() has 
> > two
> > major benefits: 1) consistency across the kernel and 2) uses human-sensible 
> > time
> > units (msecs). Change the units of timeleft appropriately to msecs.
> > ...
> > -   timeleft = (xfs_syncd_centisecs * HZ) / 100;
> > +   timeleft = xfs_syncd_centisecs * 10;
> Hmm... can you explain that a bit more?  These are already in
> "human-sensible" units - centisecs (ala. pdflush), your patch
> seems to break this, and changes a user-visible interface too.

While youre interface may be in human-sensible units, the internal timer
subsystem is not (jiffies only exist in the kernel).
msleep_interruptible() changes this, clearly. My patch doesn't really
change anything. It really shouldn't really result in any different
behavior as far as I can tell. msleep_interruptible() takes a timeout
value in milliseconds, which is 10 times the number of centiseconds

Does that clear things up?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>