Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7343C10F14 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 02:45:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E53217D9 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 02:45:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726689AbfDKCpd (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:45:33 -0400 Received: from 178.115.242.59.static.drei.at ([178.115.242.59]:38146 "EHLO mail.osadl.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726106AbfDKCpd (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:45:33 -0400 Received: by mail.osadl.at (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 025E35C2DC5; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:44:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:44:44 +0200 From: Nicholas Mc Guire To: Adham.Abozaeid@microchip.com Cc: hofrat@osadl.org, Ajay.Kathat@microchip.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] staging: wilc1000: give usleep_range a range Message-ID: <20190411024444.GA5487@osadl.at> References: <1554552067-15421-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> <20190409013656.GA22293@osadl.at> <0360e5c6-28c8-db9e-1e8d-80445fe433c0@microchip.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0360e5c6-28c8-db9e-1e8d-80445fe433c0@microchip.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 06:31:21PM +0000, Adham.Abozaeid@microchip.com wrote: > Hi Nicolas > > On 4/8/19 6:36 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:10:00PM +0000, Adham.Abozaeid@microchip.com wrote: > >> Hi Nicholas > >> > >> On 4/6/19 5:01 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > >>> External E-Mail > >>> > >>> > >>> Someone that knows the motivation for setting the time to 2 millisecond > >>> might need to check if the 2 milliseconds where seen as tollerable max or > >>> min - I'm assuming it was the min so extending. > >> 2 msec is the time the chip takes to wake up from sleep. > >> > >> Increasing the maximum to 5 msec will impact the throughput since this call is on the transmit path. > >> > > ok - would it be tollerable to make it 2 - 2.5 ms ? > > even that would allow for the hrtimer subsystem to optimize > > a lot. In any case the min==max case gives you very little > > if you run a test-case with usleep_range(1000,1000) and > > a loop with usleep_range(1000,2000) and look at the distribution > > you will have a hard time seeing any difference. > > yes, I believe 2.5 shouldn't be a problem. > thanks - will send out a V2 then shortly. thx! hofrat