Re: [PATCH] md - 1 of 2 - Use "shedule_timeout(2)" instead of yield() as it seems to wait for less time.
From: Andrew Morton <hidden>
Date: 2004-03-05 06:16:21
NeilBrown [off-list ref] wrote:
+ schedule_timeout(2);
Are you sure we want to sleep for 20-30 milliseconds on a 100 Hz machine? Wouldn't it be better to do diff -puN drivers/md/raid5.c~md-use-schedule_timeout drivers/md/raid5.c
--- 25/drivers/md/raid5.c~md-use-schedule_timeout 2004-03-04 22:15:14.000000000 -0800
+++ 25-akpm/drivers/md/raid5.c 2004-03-04 22:15:41.000000000 -0800@@ -1409,7 +1409,8 @@ static int sync_request (mddev_t *mddev, /* make sure we don't swamp the stripe cache if someone else * is trying to get access */ - yield(); + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); + schedule_timeout(max(HZ/500, 1)); } spin_lock(&sh->lock); set_bit(STRIPE_SYNCING, &sh->state);
diff -puN drivers/md/raid6main.c~md-use-schedule_timeout drivers/md/raid6main.c
--- 25/drivers/md/raid6main.c~md-use-schedule_timeout 2004-03-04 22:15:14.000000000 -0800
+++ 25-akpm/drivers/md/raid6main.c 2004-03-04 22:15:50.000000000 -0800@@ -1571,7 +1571,8 @@ static int sync_request (mddev_t *mddev, /* make sure we don't swamp the stripe cache if someone else * is trying to get access */ - yield(); + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); + schedule_timeout(max(HZ/500, 1)); } spin_lock(&sh->lock); set_bit(STRIPE_SYNCING, &sh->state);
_ ?