Re: atkbd_timeout() period?

[Jan Kokemüller]

On 05.01.22 06:41, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Or may be it can be avoided somehow 20 years later?

I'd be super happy if this was removed. On my old laptop I had to disable this
code for many years because it lead to hangs in my (non-standard) setup at the
time:



-Jan

Re: atkbd_timeout() period?

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:39 AM Warner Losh  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:42 PM Alexander Motin  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As I see, one of the most active threaded callouts on idle VMware VM and
>> some hardware is atkbd_timeout(), called 10 times per second.  Plus it
>> is also one of few remaining non-MP-safe callouts.  According to the
>> comment it seems to be only a workaround for some lost interrupts.  That
>> makes me thing: is it really needed to run so often and so accurate, or
>> may be we could reduce it to 1-2 times per second?  Or may be it can be
>> avoided somehow 20 years later?
>>
>
> Yea, we can likely just trash it and wait for people to complain about the
> keyboard being hung. I doubt we'll get any complaints because Xaccel 2.1
> was quite a long time ago... It is no longer relevant and the original
> conditions
> that caused the lost interrupts are likely long gone...
>
> And if they aren't, we'll get a reproducible test case to judge what the
> right workaround
> should be.
>
> Warner
>



If  "10"  in   " atkbd_timeout(), called 10 times per second "
 can be defined by a control variable ,
then
 it may not be necessary to remove its call , and
 polling rate may be set with respect to the suitable needs .


Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

Re: atkbd_timeout() period?

[Warner Losh]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:42 PM Alexander Motin  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As I see, one of the most active threaded callouts on idle VMware VM and
> some hardware is atkbd_timeout(), called 10 times per second.  Plus it
> is also one of few remaining non-MP-safe callouts.  According to the
> comment it seems to be only a workaround for some lost interrupts.  That
> makes me thing: is it really needed to run so often and so accurate, or
> may be we could reduce it to 1-2 times per second?  Or may be it can be
> avoided somehow 20 years later?
>

Yea, we can likely just trash it and wait for people to complain about the
keyboard being hung. I doubt we'll get any complaints because Xaccel 2.1
was quite a long time ago... It is no longer relevant and the original
conditions
that caused the lost interrupts are likely long gone...

And if they aren't, we'll get a reproducible test case to judge what the
right workaround
should be.

Warner

atkbd_timeout() period?

[Alexander Motin]

Hi,

As I see, one of the most active threaded callouts on idle VMware VM and
some hardware is atkbd_timeout(), called 10 times per second.  Plus it
is also one of few remaining non-MP-safe callouts.  According to the
comment it seems to be only a workaround for some lost interrupts.  That
makes me thing: is it really needed to run so often and so accurate, or
may be we could reduce it to 1-2 times per second?  Or may be it can be
avoided somehow 20 years later?

-- 
Alexander Motin