On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:32:23AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:22PM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote: > >> In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use hrtimers instead of > >> msleep. Using msleep(1~20) there are more chances of sleeping for 20ms. > >> Using usleep_range uses hrtimers and hence are precise, worst case will > >> trigger an interrupt at the higher/max timeout. > >> > >> As per kernel document "Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt" sleeping > >> for 10us to 20ms its recomended to use usleep_range. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Lgtm, I still feel that our use of W=1 is fairly arbitrary and worth > > tweaking in future. > > With the current code, this is essentially the same as the original > patch. We never have W > 20, and thus we always take the usleep_range() > path. So W is definitely worth tweaking if we go with this now. > > Nitpick, the macro params should be parenthesized. This will now break > for _wait_for(cond, 10, 2 + 1) and such. > > Arun, please don't immediately reply with updated patches if there's > discussion still going on. See what the conclusion is first. Thanks. Also when quickly replying a single patch please use in-reply-to to the correct thread. This way the discussion is still kept tighlty grouped together even when you resend quickly. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
