From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] OMAP: mailbox: add notification support for multiple readers Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 13:31:09 +0200 Message-ID: <1290252669.15533.28.camel@eowin> References: <1290107742-16760-1-git-send-email-h-kanigeri2@ti.com> <1290107742-16760-6-git-send-email-h-kanigeri2@ti.com> <20101119085007.GK6446@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20101119120938.GN2329@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20101119125353.GB5818@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <1290176736.15533.17.camel@eowin> <1290208036.15533.24.camel@eowin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ns1.siteground211.com ([209.62.36.12]:37364 "EHLO serv01.siteground211.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752417Ab0KTLaw (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:30:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Kanigeri, Hari" Cc: balbi@ti.com, Hiroshi Doyu , linux omap , Tony Lindgren , Linux ARM , Fernando Guzman Lugo Hi Hari, On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 22:01 -0600, Kanigeri, Hari wrote: > Of course :), profiling was done before releasing this code and no > difference observed with or without blocking notifier. All the OMAP4 would you share some numbers ? > use cases are exercising this code. Just curious , are you doubting > the blocking notifier mechanism ? a little bit. Yeah. It added about 600ms of time spent on musb's probe when we were using blocking notifier for charger detection. When we moved to atomic notifier, that was solved. Anyway, you can never be sure when that will be scheduled and if cpu is really busy, it might pose a great deal. -- balbi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: me@felipebalbi.com (Felipe Balbi) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 13:31:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 5/5] OMAP: mailbox: add notification support for multiple readers In-Reply-To: References: <1290107742-16760-1-git-send-email-h-kanigeri2@ti.com> <1290107742-16760-6-git-send-email-h-kanigeri2@ti.com> <20101119085007.GK6446@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20101119120938.GN2329@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20101119125353.GB5818@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <1290176736.15533.17.camel@eowin> <1290208036.15533.24.camel@eowin> Message-ID: <1290252669.15533.28.camel@eowin> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Hari, On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 22:01 -0600, Kanigeri, Hari wrote: > Of course :), profiling was done before releasing this code and no > difference observed with or without blocking notifier. All the OMAP4 would you share some numbers ? > use cases are exercising this code. Just curious , are you doubting > the blocking notifier mechanism ? a little bit. Yeah. It added about 600ms of time spent on musb's probe when we were using blocking notifier for charger detection. When we moved to atomic notifier, that was solved. Anyway, you can never be sure when that will be scheduled and if cpu is really busy, it might pose a great deal. -- balbi