Hi Felipe and Adam,
On Monday 21 July 2014 10:40:52 Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 05:28:58PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 January 2014 08:44:57 Adam Wozniak wrote:
> > > With a USB 2.0 webcam attached to the OTG port on an OMAP3 (applies to
> > > overo gumstix, beagleboard, probably others) we see a high CPU load in a
> > > kworker thread.
> > >
> > > Between 2.6.33 and 2.6.34 musb_core.c changed.
> > >
> > > IRQ handlers changed with the result that a worker in musb_core.c got
> > > scheduled far more frequently than needed.
> > >
> > > I've included a patch below against 3.7, but i think it'll apply against
> > > mainline.
> > > [I apologize for any whitespace mangling. I've also attached the
> > > patch.]
> > >
> > > I'd like more eyeballs to tell me if this is right. I'd also like to
> > > know who I need to talk to to get this pushed into mainline.
> >
> > Running the scripts/get_maintainer.pl script on your patch produces
> >
> > Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> (maintainer:MUSB MULTIPOINT H...)
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:USB SUBSYSTEM)
> > linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:MUSB MULTIPOINT H...)
> > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)
> >
> > Felipe Balbi (CC'ed) is the person who you should talk to.
> >
> > While we're touching the subject of scripts, you should run the
> > scripts/checkpatch.pl script and fix errors and warnings before submitting
> > patches. Please see Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
> >
> > Last (but not least) piece of advice, don't give up if you don't receive
> > replies to your patches. People are busy and mails fall to cracks from
> > time to time.
> >
> > Felipe, apart from the coding style violation and the possibly missing
> > locking, what's your opinion on this ? Does the patch make sense ?
>
> It's a duplication of the check which is already in musb_irq_work():
>
> 1742 static void musb_irq_work(struct work_struct *data)
> 1743 {
> 1744 struct musb *musb = container_of(data, struct musb, irq_work);
> 1745
> 1746 if (musb->xceiv->state != musb->xceiv_old_state) {
> 1747 musb->xceiv_old_state = musb->xceiv->state;
> 1748 sysfs_notify(&musb->controller->kobj, NULL, "mode");
> 1749 }
> 1750 }
>
> That does look better, but I'd need the check inside musb_irq_work() to
> be removed and commit log would have to improve a bit.
OK. Adam, could you please modify the patch accordingly and resubmit it ?
> ps: there's no missing locking, musb_stage0_irq() is called within
> musb_interrupt() which is called within a locked IRQ handler.
I hadn't checked that, thank you for the confirmation.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
