On 10/18/2024 12:54 AM, Praveen Kumar wrote: > On 17-10-2024 04:07, Easwar Hariharan wrote: >> We have several places where timeouts are open-coded as N (seconds) * HZ, >> but best practice is to use msecs_to_jiffies(). Convert the timeouts to >> make them HZ invariant. >>> Signed-off-by: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c | 9 +++++---- >> drivers/hv/hv_kvp.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/hv/hv_snapshot.c | 6 ++++-- >> drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c | 2 +- >> 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c b/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c >> index c38dcdfcb914d..3017d41f12681 100644 >> --- a/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c >> +++ b/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c >> @@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ static void hv_mem_hot_add(unsigned long start, unsigned long size, >> * adding succeeded, it is ok to proceed even if the memory was >> * not onlined in time. >> */ >> - wait_for_completion_timeout(&dm_device.ol_waitevent, 5 * HZ); >> + wait_for_completion_timeout(&dm_device.ol_waitevent, msecs_to_jiffies(5 * 1000)); > > Is it correct to convert HZ to 1000 ? > Also, how are you testing these changes ? > It's a conversion of milliseconds to seconds, rather than HZ to 1000. :) msecs_to_jiffies() handles the conversion to jiffies with HZ. As Naman mentioned, this could be equivalently written as 5 * MSECS_PER_SEC, and would probably be more readable. On testing, this is only compile-tested, and that's part of the reason why it's an RFC, since I'm not 100% sure every one of these timeouts is measured in seconds. Hoping for folks more familiar with the code to take a look. Thanks, Easwar
