From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3wKHdF4Ck6zDqCL for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 02:38:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost (76-250-84-236.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [76.250.84.236]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1494002283306474.23419697104305; Fri, 5 May 2017 09:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 11:38:02 -0500 From: Patrick Williams To: Patrick Venture Cc: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, Nancy Yuen , Matthew Barth Subject: Re: phosphor-hwmon bottleneck potential Message-ID: <20170505163802.GD25937@heinlein.lan> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zS7rBR6csb6tI2e1" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 1 X-ZohoMailClient: External X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 16:38:10 -0000 --zS7rBR6csb6tI2e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:11:49AM -0700, Patrick Venture wrote: > Without multi-threading to remove the timing bottleneck on my platform, a= nd > the inability to provide other more direct interfaces for controlling fan= s, > I'll be unable to use phosphor-hwmon as a primary source for > reading/writing sensor data and will be unable to upstream any effort i > make to write a pluggable thermal controller. =46rom what you wrote earlier, it seems like the constraint has nothing to do with phosphor-hwmon but with the hwmon subsystem for your particular driver? How does a "direct interface" avoid the hwmon latency? I'm 99% certain that it isn't dbus itself contributing to the 8 second latency you are seeing here. Are you arriving at a different conclusion? --=20 Patrick Williams --zS7rBR6csb6tI2e1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEBGD9ii4LE9cNbqJBqwNHzC0AwRkFAlkMqmoACgkQqwNHzC0A wRk7gw//ZFwaiQ9eijiadfydXllc+uxbH/n1vruWovBrMWXoFpGRy4CoQEVpbVzs 5xvxQ/963eOlzvgxsKt40DcSyEOwdRzxEHaJ6WcHBIVoTx1HbmTER7NIooMQP+vS /2TlHaPg1+hEYg6JS1+t+noRljem0gMgZkxgkpkbOpA0Xhs6xoAZpzAz58DVFpZy J1/0iBZPZKGx8VgE+SfrN0oLx6hjyPXHQJF85fjF1KwGWL0Ril/hCA2qyJSEkyWt nTFARJt6OVQSjb+JQtLGMgNz91Y5s5ojGIRH1+mLSKPpHs30SiCNFiS+y/l3B7Qq 1OmCvHEVogJ3eyy3+Y7X6E7Iu2HCXtCDy3SsDYvQyqAmX8jYAliYcLMr4ZwtDkws 87lAR+d/LeICTIVcTsyqbTJZqo110WrbTfpj7UeG6ElaMhvgVYERlvtDkaJPNA8L deyLgbQIN5EOrNwT9qpF47dBMuLH+yDe8t/x6TUR790wYxLfjYrhMlbnAdtei3VD Sl2aUBKFNB7zmSci0M2M2AdOsZmK8fo5eb53VukHKGPIKQyYEmDc+CrauKkfKbaQ aHYXHRbAwq6OWfjcaZAeM6iVVbfiCW/rbX8/bumvH4p3xQgnXcRvcf15+CCVhRdB lqeexjFlF+037tEfX43iscqpnSqm72x7fs7xUYyDGFIWK8+4gnQ= =l4D6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zS7rBR6csb6tI2e1--