 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] linux c/s 391
| To: | "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <steven.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] linux c/s 391 |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:59:37 +0000 |
| Cc: | xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:59:30 -0800 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
The comment in the first hunk of that patch contradicts the added code: mdelay() is a busy wait loop, i.e. CPU consumption is getting worse. Is it possible that msleep() or msleep_interruptible() was meant to be used here? Additionally, since blktap was derived from blkback, shouldn't a similar change bo done there? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-devel] VMX status report. Xen: #16764 & Xen0: #391 -- one new issue, Li, Haicheng |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2 of 2] Make tools/check scripts cross-friendly, Christoph Egger |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] VMX status report. Xen: #16764 & Xen0: #391 -- one new issue, Li, Haicheng |
| Next by Thread: | [Xen-devel] Re: linux c/s 391, Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
