Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-72208-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <388686b2-5305-43d1-8edf-19ba66d52727@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:20:31 -0500
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clocksource: Scale the max retry number of watchdog
 read according to CPU numbers
Content-Language: en-US
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
 paulmck@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jin Wang <jin1.wang@intel.com>
References: <20240129134505.961208-1-feng.tang@intel.com>
 <87msrwadvu.ffs@tglx> <ZdNnjdNTjtvpbGH0@feng-clx.sh.intel.com>
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZdNnjdNTjtvpbGH0@feng-clx.sh.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2/19/24 09:37, Feng Tang wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 12:32:05PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 29 2024 at 21:45, Feng Tang wrote:
>>> +static inline long clocksource_max_watchdog_read_retries(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	long max_retries = max_cswd_read_retries;
>>> +
>>> +	if (max_cswd_read_retries <= 0) {
>>> +		/* santity check for user input value */
>>> +		if (max_cswd_read_retries != -1)
>>> +			pr_warn_once("max_cswd_read_retries was set with an invalid number: %ld\n",
>>> +				max_cswd_read_retries);
>>> +
>>> +		max_retries = ilog2(num_online_cpus()) + 1;
>> I'm getting tired of these knobs and the horrors behind them. Why not
>> simply doing the obvious:
>>
>>         retries = ilog2(num_online_cpus()) + 1;
>>
>> and remove the knob alltogether?
> Thanks for the suggestion! Yes, this makes sense to me. IIUC, the
> 'max_cswd_read_retries' was introduced mainly to cover different
> platforms' requirement, which could now be covered by the new
> self-adaptive number.
>
> If there is no concern from other developers, I will send a new
> version in this direction.

I see no problem simplifying it.

Cheers,
Longman