From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Murthy, Arun R" <arun.r.murthy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] drm/i915: use hrtimer in wait for vblank
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:18:30 +0530
Message-ID: <5333AD9E.2000800@gmail.com>
References: <1395737902-11984-1-git-send-email-arun.r.murthy@intel.com>
 <20140325090703.GY4366@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> <87eh1qvd20.fsf@intel.com>
 <53315074.6050502@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F0C6E816
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53315074.6050502@gmail.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" <airlied@linux.ie>, "daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, "Murthy,
 Arun R" <arun.r.murthy@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:16 PM, Murthy, Arun R wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2014 03:02 PM, 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.
> wait_for(COND, TIMEOUT, ATOMIC, MS)
> and remove all wait_for_X
>
> function will look like
> _wait_for(COND< TIMEOUT, ATOMIC, MS)
> {
>       /* loop */
>           /* check condition */
>           if (atomic)
>               cpu_relax()
>           else
>               if (ms > 20)
>                   msleep
>               else
>                   usleep_range
> }
>
> caller for wait_for will be setting all the parameters and hence no tweaks.

Any comments on this?

Thanks and Regards,
Arun R Murthy
-------------------