Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1542572

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays

From Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays
Date 2016-12-15 10:30 +0100
Message-ID <sOAwp-42f-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <sOvQ5-19P-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sOAd4-3Wj-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
> > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted -
> > change this to a udelay(2).
> 
> Similar concerns as in [1]. We don't need the accuracy of udelay() here,
> so this boils down to which is the better use of CPU. We could probably
> relax the max delay more if that was helpful. But I'm not immediately
> sold on "is most likely more efficient" which sounds like a gut feeling.
> 
> I'm sorry it's not clear in my other reply that I do appreciate
> addressing incorrect/silly use of usleep_range(); I'm just not (yet)
> convinced udelay() is the answer.

if the delay is not critical and all that is needed 
is an assurance that it is greater than X us then 
usleep_range is fine with a relaxed limit. 
So from what you wrote my patch proposal is wrong - the
udelay() is not the way to got.
My intent is to get rid of very small usleep_range() cases
so if usleep_range(20,50) causes no issues with this driver
and does not induce any performance penalty then that would 
be the way to go I think.

thx!
hofrat

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> - 2016-12-15 05:30 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-15 10:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at> - 2016-12-15 10:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-15 11:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-15 11:20 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-15 11:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at> - 2016-12-15 12:00 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-15 13:00 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-15 13:10 +0100
    Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-12-15 10:30 +0100
      Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at> - 2016-12-15 12:00 +0100
        Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-12-15 12:40 +0100
    Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-12-15 10:30 +0100

csiph-web