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;
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 18:14:03 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>
Cc:     Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        grygorii.strashko@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 1/4] dmaengine: ti: k3-udma: Use
 ktime/usleep_range based TX completion check
Message-ID: <20200128124403.GV2841@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20200127132111.20464-1-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
 <20200127132111.20464-2-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
 <20200128114820.GS2841@vkoul-mobl>
 <d968f32d-dc5f-0567-5aa4-faf318025c23@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d968f32d-dc5f-0567-5aa4-faf318025c23@ti.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 28-01-20, 17:35, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:

> >> +	/* Transfer is incomplete, store current residue and time stamp */
> >>  	if (peer_bcnt < bcnt) {
> >>  		uc->tx_drain.residue = bcnt - peer_bcnt;
> >> -		uc->tx_drain.jiffie = jiffies;
> >> +		uc->tx_drain.tstamp = ktime_get();
> > 
> > Any reason why ktime_get() is better than jiffies..?
> 
> Resolution of jiffies is 4ms. ktime_t is has better resolution (upto ns
> scale). With jiffies, I observed that code was either always polling DMA
> progress counters (which affects HW data transfer speed) or sleeping too
> long, both causing performance loss. Switching to ktime_t provides
> better prediction of how long transfer takes to complete.

Thanks for explanation, i think it is good info to add in changelog.

-- 
~Vinod