On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 06:31:21PM +0000, Adham.Abozaeid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
