On 16/11/2017 18:05, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:42:36PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> Requesting 100 �s and spinning only 25 �s is still a problem,
>> don't you agree?
>
> Which is why, as I've said *many* times already, that drivers are written
> with leaway on the delays.
A delay 75% too short is possible. Roger that.
> I get the impression that we're just going around in circles, and what
> you're trying to do is to get me to agree with your point of view.
> That's not going to happen, because I know the history over about the
> last /24/ years of kernel development (which is how long I've been
> involved with the kernel.) That's almost a quarter of a century!
>
> I know how things were done years ago (which is relevant because we
> still have support in the kernel for these systems), and I also know the
> history of facilities like cpufreq - I was the one who took the work
> that Erik Mouw and others involved with the LART project, and turned it
> into something a little more generic. The idea of dynamically scaling
> the CPU frequency on ARM SoCs was something that the SoC manufacturer
> had not even considered - it was innovative.
>
> I know that udelay() can return short delays when used in a kernel with
> cpufreq enabled, and I also know that's almost an impossible problem to
> solve without going to a timer-based delay.
>
> So, when you think that sending an email about a udelay() that can be
> 10x shorter might be somehow new information, and might convince people
> that there's a problem, I'm afraid that it isn't really new information.
> The SA1110 cpufreq driver is dated 2001, and carries my copyright, and
> has the ability to make udelay()s 4x shorter or 4x longer depending on
> the direction of change.
>
> We've discussed solutions in the past (probably 10 years ago) about
> this, and what can be done, and the conclusion to that was, as Nicolas
> has said, to switch to using a timer-based delay mechanism where
> possible. Where this is not possible, the platform is stuck with the
> loops based delays, and their inherent variability and inaccuracy.
>
> These platforms have been tested with such a setup over many years.
> They work even with udelay() having this behaviour, because it's a
> known issue and drivers cater for it in ways that I've already covered
> in my many previous emails to you.
>
> These issues are known. They've been known for the last 15 odd years.
So you've known for umpteen years that fixing loop-based delays is
intractable, yet you wrote:
> udelay() needs to offer a consistent interface so that drivers know
> what to expect no matter what the implementation is. Making one
> implementation conform to your ideas while leaving the other
> implementations with other expectations is a recipe for bugs.
>
> If you really want to do this, fix the loops_per_jiffy implementation
> as well so that the consistency is maintained.
In other words, "I'll consider your patch as soon as Hell freezes over".
Roger that. I'll drop the subject then.
From 1584258764515109015@xxx Thu Nov 16 21:14:54 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582790467810046578
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread