Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dec: tulip: de4x5: Replace mdelay with usleep_range in
 de4x5_hw_init
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        davem@davemloft.net, stephen@networkplumber.org,
        johannes.berg@intel.com, dhowells@redhat.com
References: <1523461182-5897-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
 <1523463379.3221.18.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <8bac3385-97c6-fff1-17c6-11f5e98a039a@gmail.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From:   arvindY <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5ACEC2B6.9080904@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:51:42 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8bac3385-97c6-fff1-17c6-11f5e98a039a@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Thursday 12 April 2018 07:00 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/4/12 0:16, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 23:39 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>>> de4x5_hw_init() is never called in atomic context.
>>>
>>> de4x5_hw_init() is only called by de4x5_pci_probe(), which is only
>>> set as ".probe" in struct pci_driver.
>>>
>>> Despite never getting called from atomic context, de4x5_hw_init()
>>> calls mdelay() to busily wait. This is not necessary and can be
>>> replaced with usleep_range() to  avoid busy waiting.
>>>
>>> This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself.
>>> And I also manually check it.
>> Did you actually test this?  The usual reason for wanting m/udelay is
>> that the timing must be exact.  The driver is filled with mdelay()s for
>> this reason.  The one you've picked on is in the init path so it won't
>> affect the runtime in any way.  I also don't think we have the hrtimer
>> machinery for usleep_range() to work properly on parisc, so I don't
>> think the replacement works.
>>
>> James
>>
>
> Hello, James.
> Thanks for your reply :)
>
> I agree that usleep_range() here will not much affect the real 
> execution of this driver.
>
> But I think usleep_range() can more opportunity for other threads to 
> use the CPU core to schedule during waiting.
> That is why I detect mdelay() that can be replaced with msleep() or 
> usleep_range().
>

James is right, You have added all usleep_range() during system boot-up 
time.
During boot-up system will run as single threaded. Where this change will
not make much sense. System first priority is match the exact timing on
each and every boot-up.

~arvind

>
> Best wishes,
> Jia-Ju Bai