On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:28:22PM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote: >> In wait for vblank use usleep_range, which will use hrtimers instead of >> msleep. Using msleep(1~20) there are more chances of sleeping for 20ms. >> Using usleep_range uses hrtimers and hence are precise, worst case will >> trigger an interrupt at the higher/max timeout. >> >> As per kernel document "Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt" sleeping >> for 10us to 20ms its recomended to use usleep_range. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arun R Murthy <arun.r.mur...@intel.com> > > Lgtm, I still feel that our use of W=1 is fairly arbitrary and worth > tweaking in future.
With the current code, this is essentially the same as the original patch. We never have W > 20, and thus we always take the usleep_range() path. So W is definitely worth tweaking if we go with this now. Nitpick, the macro params should be parenthesized. This will now break for _wait_for(cond, 10, 2 + 1) and such. Arun, please don't immediately reply with updated patches if there's discussion still going on. See what the conclusion is first. Thanks. BR, Jani. > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
