From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>
Cc: Ville =?utf-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays
In-Reply-To: <20161215103400.GA26125@osadl.at>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
References: <1481776147-23041-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> <87wpf1pnj2.fsf@intel.com> <20161215092830.GA25458@osadl.at> <87mvfxpli5.fsf@intel.com> <20161215101036.GW31595@intel.com> <87k2b1pk8e.fsf@intel.com> <20161215103400.GA26125@osadl.at>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:48:38 +0200
Message-ID: <87h965pg4p.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2896
Lines: 64

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:20:01PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:52:34AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
>> >> >> > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted -
>> >> >> > change this to a udelay(2).
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Similar concerns as in [1]. We don't need the accuracy of udelay() here,
>> >> >> so this boils down to which is the better use of CPU. We could probably
>> >> >> relax the max delay more if that was helpful. But I'm not immediately
>> >> >> sold on "is most likely more efficient" which sounds like a gut feeling.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I'm sorry it's not clear in my other reply that I do appreciate
>> >> >> addressing incorrect/silly use of usleep_range(); I'm just not (yet)
>> >> >> convinced udelay() is the answer.
>> >> >
>> >> > if the delay is not critical and all that is needed 
>> >> > is an assurance that it is greater than X us then 
>> >> > usleep_range is fine with a relaxed limit. 
>> >> > So from what you wrote my patch proposal is wrong - the
>> >> > udelay() is not the way to got.
>> >> > My intent is to get rid of very small usleep_range() cases
>> >> > so if usleep_range(20,50) causes no issues with this driver
>> >> > and does not induce any performance penalty then that would 
>> >> > be the way to go I think.
>> >> 
>> >> Okay, so I looked at the code, and I looked at our spec, and I looked at
>> >> the MIPI D-PHY spec, and I cried a little.
>> >> 
>> >> Long story short, I think usleep_range(10, 50) will be fine.
>> >
>> > Note that I really want to see a comment next to every delay like this
>> > documenting the actual hardware requirement, if the delay used by the
>> > code doesn't 100% match it.
>> 
>> Our spec says, "Wait for 2us for ULPS to complete". That's a simplistic
>> view wrt D-PHY, and our code doesn't even match the spec. Hence the
>> tears. Want to propose a wording for the comment so we can apply this
>> change, without going for a full rewrite of the sequence?
>>
> is that suitable or am I overdoing it ?
>
> -               usleep_range(2, 3);
> +               /* delay for at least 2us - relaxed to 10-50 to allow
> +                * hrtimer subsystem to optimize uncritical timer handling
> +                */
> +               usleep_range(10, 50);

I'm fine with that. Or maybe just make it "relaxed to allow" without the
values.

Jani.


>
> thx!
> hofrat 

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center