From: Nathan Lynch <nathan.lynch@amd.com>
To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <dave.jiang@intel.com>, <kristen.c.accardi@intel.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] dmaengine: dmatest: Fix dmatest waiting less when interrupted
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:35:46 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y0x7z45p.fsf@AUSNATLYNCH.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r030ldbw.fsf@intel.com>
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com> writes:
> Nathan Lynch <nathan.lynch@amd.com> writes:
>> Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com> writes:
>>> My understanding (and testing) is that wait_event_timeout() will block
>>> for the duration even in the face of interrupts, 'freezable' will not.
>>
>> They have different behaviors with respect to *signals* and the
>> wake_up() variant used, but not device interrupts.
>>
>
> Ah! That's something that I wasn't considering. That it could be
> something other than interrupts that were unblocking wait_event_*().
Well, I doubt it would be a signal in this case. Maybe you've
experienced timeouts?
>> dmatest_callback() employs wake_up_all(), which means this change
>> introduces no beneficial difference in the wakeup behavior. The dmatest
>> thread gets woken on receipt of the completion interrupt either way.
>>
>> And to reiterate, the change regresses the combination of dmatest and
>> the task freezer, which is a use case people have cared about,
>> apparently.
>>
>
> If this change in behavior causes a regression for others, glad to send
> a revert and find another solution.
Thanks - yes it should be reverted or dropped IMO.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-14 21:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-05 23:00 [PATCH v1] dmaengine: dmatest: Fix dmatest waiting less when interrupted Vinicius Costa Gomes
2025-03-05 23:14 ` Dave Jiang
2025-03-10 21:06 ` Vinod Koul
2025-03-12 18:58 ` Nathan Lynch
2025-03-12 22:13 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2025-03-13 14:10 ` Nathan Lynch
2025-03-13 16:36 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2025-03-13 21:21 ` Nathan Lynch
2025-03-13 23:29 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2025-03-14 21:35 ` Nathan Lynch [this message]
2025-03-14 22:24 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2025-04-02 13:45 ` Nathan Lynch
2025-04-03 3:44 ` Vinicius Costa Gomes
2025-04-03 16:24 ` Nathan Lynch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y0x7z45p.fsf@AUSNATLYNCH.amd.com \
--to=nathan.lynch@amd.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=dmaengine@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kristen.c.accardi@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=vinicius.gomes@intel.com \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox