Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: add msecs_to_jiffies_timeout to guarantee minimum duration
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Imre Deak imre.d...@intel.com wrote:
We need this to avoid premature timeouts whenever scheduling a timeout
based on the current jiffies value. For an explanation see [1].
The following patches will take the helper into use.
Once the more generic solution proposed in the thread at [1] is accepted
this patch can be reverted while keeping the follow-up patches.
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=136854294730957w=2
With the name clashes, what happens when the generic solution is merged?
Blows up the build? To avoid confusion with merging upstream and
potential stable backports, should we err on the safe side and rename
these? Or add suitable trickery to use the generic version when
available?
BR,
Jani.
Signed-off-by: Imre Deak imre.d...@intel.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 639ec0b..78b6c56 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1981,4 +1981,19 @@ static inline void __user *to_user_ptr(u64 address)
return (void __user *)(uintptr_t)address;
}
+static inline unsigned long msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const unsigned int m)
+{
+ unsigned long j = msecs_to_jiffies(m);
+
+ return min_t(unsigned long, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, j + 1);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long
+timespec_to_jiffies_timeout(const struct timespec *value)
+{
+ unsigned long j = timespec_to_jiffies(value);
+
+ return min_t(unsigned long, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, j + 1);
+}
+
#endif
--
1.8.1.2
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: add msecs_to_jiffies_timeout to guarantee minimum duration
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jani Nikula jani.nik...@linux.intel.com wrote: On Tue, 21 May 2013, Imre Deak imre.d...@intel.com wrote: We need this to avoid premature timeouts whenever scheduling a timeout based on the current jiffies value. For an explanation see [1]. The following patches will take the helper into use. Once the more generic solution proposed in the thread at [1] is accepted this patch can be reverted while keeping the follow-up patches. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=136854294730957w=2 With the name clashes, what happens when the generic solution is merged? Blows up the build? To avoid confusion with merging upstream and potential stable backports, should we err on the safe side and rename these? Or add suitable trickery to use the generic version when available? linux-next should catch such fallout and we can fix up things in the merge. And since Linus has intel graphics I expect that he'll catch it if it fails to compile ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: add msecs_to_jiffies_timeout to guarantee minimum duration
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 11:46 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jani Nikula jani.nik...@linux.intel.com wrote: On Tue, 21 May 2013, Imre Deak imre.d...@intel.com wrote: We need this to avoid premature timeouts whenever scheduling a timeout based on the current jiffies value. For an explanation see [1]. The following patches will take the helper into use. Once the more generic solution proposed in the thread at [1] is accepted this patch can be reverted while keeping the follow-up patches. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=136854294730957w=2 With the name clashes, what happens when the generic solution is merged? Blows up the build? To avoid confusion with merging upstream and potential stable backports, should we err on the safe side and rename these? Or add suitable trickery to use the generic version when available? linux-next should catch such fallout and we can fix up things in the merge. And since Linus has intel graphics I expect that he'll catch it if it fails to compile ;-) Yea, I haven't thought this through properly. But after discussing with Jani, this seems to be doable. I only hope Linus won't have to resolve anything :) --Imre ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: add msecs_to_jiffies_timeout to guarantee minimum duration
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:57:01PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 11:46 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jani Nikula jani.nik...@linux.intel.com wrote: On Tue, 21 May 2013, Imre Deak imre.d...@intel.com wrote: We need this to avoid premature timeouts whenever scheduling a timeout based on the current jiffies value. For an explanation see [1]. The following patches will take the helper into use. Once the more generic solution proposed in the thread at [1] is accepted this patch can be reverted while keeping the follow-up patches. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=136854294730957w=2 With the name clashes, what happens when the generic solution is merged? Blows up the build? To avoid confusion with merging upstream and potential stable backports, should we err on the safe side and rename these? Or add suitable trickery to use the generic version when available? linux-next should catch such fallout and we can fix up things in the merge. And since Linus has intel graphics I expect that he'll catch it if it fails to compile ;-) Yea, I haven't thought this through properly. But after discussing with Jani, this seems to be doable. I only hope Linus won't have to resolve anything :) Ok, I've picked up the entire pile for -fixes, thanks for the patches. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: add msecs_to_jiffies_timeout to guarantee minimum duration
We need this to avoid premature timeouts whenever scheduling a timeout
based on the current jiffies value. For an explanation see [1].
The following patches will take the helper into use.
Once the more generic solution proposed in the thread at [1] is accepted
this patch can be reverted while keeping the follow-up patches.
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=136854294730957w=2
Signed-off-by: Imre Deak imre.d...@intel.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 639ec0b..78b6c56 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1981,4 +1981,19 @@ static inline void __user *to_user_ptr(u64 address)
return (void __user *)(uintptr_t)address;
}
+static inline unsigned long msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const unsigned int m)
+{
+ unsigned long j = msecs_to_jiffies(m);
+
+ return min_t(unsigned long, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, j + 1);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long
+timespec_to_jiffies_timeout(const struct timespec *value)
+{
+ unsigned long j = timespec_to_jiffies(value);
+
+ return min_t(unsigned long, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, j + 1);
+}
+
#endif
--
1.8.1.2
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
