On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:27:22PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > usleep_range is not recommended for waits shorten than 10us. > > Make the wait_for_us use the atomic variant for such waits. > > To do so we need to reimplement the _wait_for_atomic macro to > be safe with regards to preemption and interrupts. > > v2: Reimplement _wait_for_atomic to be irq and preemption safe. > (Chris Wilson and Imre Deak) > > v3: Fixed in_atomic check due rebase error. > v4: Build bug on non-constant timeouts. > v5: Compile away cpu migration code in atomic paths. > > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx> I like the polish. Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Using wait_for_hybrid() is really tempting, just need to kick Mika to finish intel_wait_for_register()... -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
