Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1542572
| 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 |
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 | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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