On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 16:32:36 +0000
Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 05:28:27PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_legacy.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_legacy.c
> > > @@ -203,7 +203,13 @@ void nand_wait_ready(struct nand_chip *chip)
> > > do {
> > > if (chip->legacy.dev_ready(chip))
> > > return;
> > > - cond_resched();
> > > + /*
> > > + * Use a cond_resched_stall() to avoid spinning in
> > > + * a tight loop.
> > > + * Though, given that the timeout is in milliseconds,
> > > + * maybe this should timeout or event wait?
> >
> > Event waiting is precisely what we do here, with the hardware access
> > which are available in this case. So I believe this part of the comment
> > (in general) is not relevant. Now regarding the timeout I believe it is
> > closer to the second than the millisecond, so timeout-ing is not
> > relevant either in most cases (talking about mtd/ in general).
>
> I think you've misunderstood what Ankur wrote here. What you're
> currently doing is spinning in a very tight loop. The comment is
> suggesting you might want to msleep(1) or something to avoid burning CPU
> cycles. It'd be even better if the hardware could signal you somehow,
> but I bet it can't.
>
Oh how I wish we could bring back the old PREEMPT_RT cpu_chill()...
#define cpu_chill() msleep(1)
;-)
-- Steve
> > > + */
> > > + cond_resched_stall();
> > > } while (time_before(jiffies, timeo));
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Miquèl
> >
