On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 04:20:31PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 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
> specified.
>
> Does that clear things up?
Certainly does, the patches look fine then; I'll test them for awhile
then get them merged in.
thanks.
--
Nathan
|