From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] iopoll: Introduce memory-mapped IO polling macros
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 21:50:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1922221.DKAGMVXrIn@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <vnkwoatjn1zm.fsf@mitchelh-linux.qualcomm.com>
On Friday 10 October 2014 12:44:45 Mitchel Humpherys wrote:
> >> Regarding the division, for the overwhelmingly common case where the
> >> user of the API passes in a constant for sleep_us the compiler optimizes
> >> out this calculation altogether and just sticks the final result in (I
> >> verified this with gcc 4.9 and the kernel build system's built-in
> >> support for generating .s files). Conveying semantic meaning by using
> >> `DIV_ROUND_UP' is nice but if you feel strongly about it we can make
> >> this a shift instead.
> >
> > The more important question is probably if you want to keep the _ROUND_UP
> > part. If that's not significant, I think a shift would be better.
>
> If we drop the _ROUND_UP then passing a sleep_us <= 4 would result in a
> minimum sleep time of 0, so we'd be polling a lot faster than the user
> had expected.
How about changing the semantics to sleep at least the sleep_us time,
and at most four times that? This would turn the expensive division into
a multiplication and avoid the need for rounding.
If there are important reasons to keep doing the division, you could
instead use '(sleep_us >> 4) + 1', which is also very cheap to compute
and avoids the problem you mention.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-10 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-01 1:28 [PATCH v4 0/2] iommu/arm-smmu: hard iova_to_phys Mitchel Humpherys
2014-10-01 1:28 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] iopoll: Introduce memory-mapped IO polling macros Mitchel Humpherys
2014-10-01 8:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-08 1:47 ` Mitchel Humpherys
2014-10-08 13:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-10 19:44 ` Mitchel Humpherys
2014-10-10 19:50 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2014-10-10 20:24 ` Mitchel Humpherys
2014-10-09 22:45 ` Mitchel Humpherys
2014-10-01 1:28 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu: add support for iova_to_phys through ATS1PR Mitchel Humpherys
2014-10-01 8:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-01 19:52 ` Mitchel Humpherys
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=1922221.DKAGMVXrIn@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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