On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:14 AM Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> -------- > In message < > canczdfofbvmxptnel4goqxtvp6zd-xrtja4rmuo1racy0jd...@mail.gmail.com>, > Warner Losh writes: > > >The only issue, really, is that this timeout is a busy loop and there may > >be I/O bus contention introduced on these systems. > > Does it have to be a busy loop for the entire duration ? > > Spin for the median, timeout+poll for the rest of the time ? > That's a good suggestion. I'd be inclined to spin for 1 tick or so, then do a timeout per tick after that (eg, shift from DELAY to pause(1)). It won't be super accurate or high performance, but when the devices are slow, that would add only a little extra time. Ideally, that's what we'd do. In the short term, bumping the timeout wouldn't be horrible. Warner _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
