From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Harvey Hunt <harvey.hunt@imgtec.com>,
Alex Smith <alex.smith@imgtec.com>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@axis.com>,
Alex Smith <alex@alex-smith.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: check status before reporting timeout
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 13:51:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160307215140.GB55664@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1457140763-67571-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 05:19:23PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> In commit b70af9bef49b ("mtd: nand: increase ready wait timeout and
> report timeouts"), we increased the likelihood of scheduling during
> nand_wait(). This makes us more likely to hit the time_before(...)
> condition, since a lot of time may pass before we get scheduled again.
>
> Now, the loop was already buggy, since we don't check if the NAND is
> ready after exiting the loop; we simply print out a timeout warning. Fix
> this by doing a final status check before printing a timeout message.
>
> This isn't actually a critical bug, since the only effect is a false
> warning print. But too many prints never hurt anyone, did they? :)
>
> Side note: perhaps I'm not smart enough, but I'm not sure what the best
> policy is for this kind of loop; do we busy loop (i.e., no
> cond_resched()) to keep the lowest I/O latency (it's not great if the
> resched is delaying Richard's system ~400ms)? Or do we allow
> rescheduling, to play nice with the rest of the system (since some
> operations can take quite a while)?
>
> Reported-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
> Reviewed-by: Harvey Hunt <harvey.hunt@imgtec.com>
Applied
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-07 21:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-05 1:19 [PATCH] mtd: nand: check status before reporting timeout Brian Norris
2016-03-07 21:51 ` Brian Norris [this message]
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=20160307215140.GB55664@google.com \
--to=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=alex.smith@imgtec.com \
--cc=alex@alex-smith.me.uk \
--cc=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=harvey.hunt@imgtec.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=niklas.cassel@axis.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
/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