From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] drm/i915: use hrtimer in wait for vblank
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:00:26 +0100
Message-ID: <20140325100026.GS26878@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1395737902-11984-1-git-send-email-arun.r.murthy@intel.com>
 <20140325090703.GY4366@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
 <87eh1qvd20.fsf@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com (mail-ee0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D6C6E0F4
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 03:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c13so222438eek.38
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 03:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87eh1qvd20.fsf@intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: airlied@linux.ie, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:32:23AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:22PM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote:
> >> In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use hrtimers instead of
> >> msleep. Using msleep(1~20) there are more chances of sleeping for 20ms.
> >> Using usleep_range uses hrtimers and hence are precise, worst case will
> >> trigger an interrupt at the higher/max timeout.
> >> 
> >> As per kernel document "Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt" sleeping
> >> for 10us to 20ms its recomended to use usleep_range.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@intel.com>
> >
> > Lgtm, I still feel that our use of W=1 is fairly arbitrary and worth
> > tweaking in future.
> 
> With the current code, this is essentially the same as the original
> patch. We never have W > 20, and thus we always take the usleep_range()
> path. So W is definitely worth tweaking if we go with this now.
> 
> Nitpick, the macro params should be parenthesized. This will now break
> for _wait_for(cond, 10, 2 + 1) and such.
> 
> Arun, please don't immediately reply with updated patches if there's
> discussion still going on. See what the conclusion is first. Thanks.

Also when quickly replying a single patch please use in-reply-to to the
correct thread. This way the discussion is still kept tighlty grouped
together even when you resend quickly.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch