linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] i2c-s3c2410: use exponential back off while polling for bus idle
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:10:59 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121120091056.GZ10560@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGS+omCKm+aN9ZXApmQJh1OrST-t2sA8WP7NyDOzKnv-xqJ5vg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:57:16PM +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Mark Brown

> > On the hardware I was using when I wrote the original code here we were
> > hitting 1-2 spins often enough to be interesting - starting off with a
> > direct busy wait was definitely useful when doing large batches of I/O,
> > especially compared to sleeps which might cause us to schedule.

> We check the status first to avoid any sleep()/schedule() in the case,
> that the CPU is slower than I2C transaction.

Right, but this only works if we hit this on the very first spin.

> Remember, this loop only happens after the event_wait loop has been
> woken up by the i2c irq.

Duh.

> Since you are talking about hitting a tiny window of time at some
> arbitrary point after an irq, the CPU time to this point & I2C
> finishing would have to be very precisely aligned for the 1-2 loops
> (at CPU clock rate) to matter.

On some systems that can happen enormously reliably, finger in the air
it's your fast case on the A15s you're playing with scaled down to a
much slower CPU.  The 20 spins I was setting the loop to was a massive
overestimate for conservativism but more than 1 was common enough, IIRC
spinning 5 times would have covered essentially everything.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121120/8c42a44d/attachment-0001.sig>

  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-20  9:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-15 12:13 [PATCH 0/4] i2c-s3c2410: Fix a bug and optimize code Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
2012-11-15 12:13 ` [PATCH 1/4] i2c-s3c2410: grab adapter lock while changing i2c clock Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
2012-11-15 12:13 ` [PATCH 2/4] i2c-s3c2410: do not generate STOP for QUIRK_HDMIPHY Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
2012-11-15 12:13 ` [PATCH 3/4] i2c-s3c2410: use exponential back off while polling for bus idle Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
2012-11-20  4:49   ` Mark Brown
2012-11-20  8:57     ` Daniel Kurtz
2012-11-20  9:10       ` Mark Brown [this message]
2012-11-15 12:13 ` [PATCH 4/4] i2c-s3c2410: do not special case HDMIPHY stuck bus detection Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
2012-11-16 12:05 ` [PATCH 0/4] i2c-s3c2410: Fix a bug and optimize code Wolfram Sang

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=20121120091056.GZ10560@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).