From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262558AbVEMVXD (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 17:23:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262552AbVEMVXC (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 17:23:02 -0400 Received: from clock-tower.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:8139 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262553AbVEMVW1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 17:22:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [rfc/patch] libata -- port configurable delays From: Alan Cox To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20050513185850.GA5777@kvack.org> References: <20050513185850.GA5777@kvack.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1116019231.26693.499.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 22:20:34 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Gwe, 2005-05-13 at 19:58, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > is available at http://www.kvack.org/~bcrl/simple-aio-min_nr.c). > Before this patch __delay() is the number one entry in oprofile > results for this workload. Does this look like a reasonable approach > for chipsets that aren't completely braindead? Cheers, If your chipset implements the 400nS lockout in hardware it certainly seems to make sense. Nice to know someone has put it in hardware