lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20091103002322.1f04adbe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:23:22 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand@...sony.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Jim Paris <jim@...n.com>, Cell Broadband Engine OSS Development <cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] block/ps3: Fix slow VRAM IO On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:58:27 -0700 Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand@...sony.com> wrote: > > From: Hideyuki Sasaki <Hideyuki_Sasaki@...scei.sony.co.jp> > > The current PS3 VRAM driver uses msleep() to wait for completion > of RSX DMA transfers between system memory and VRAM. Depending > on the system timing, the processing delay and overhead of this > msleep() call can significantly impact VRAM driver IO. > > To avoid the condition, add a short duration (200 usec max) > udelay() polling loop before entering the msleep() polling > loop. > When raising a performance-based patch, please always try to include before-and-after performance measurements in the changelog. People want to know the magnitude of the improvement. > > drivers/block/ps3vram.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- a/drivers/block/ps3vram.c > +++ b/drivers/block/ps3vram.c > @@ -123,7 +123,15 @@ static int ps3vram_notifier_wait(struct > { > struct ps3vram_priv *priv = ps3_system_bus_get_drvdata(dev); > u32 *notify = ps3vram_get_notifier(priv->reports, NOTIFIER); > - unsigned long timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms); > + unsigned long timeout; > + > + for (timeout = 20; timeout; timeout--) { for (timeout = 0; timeout < 20; timeout++) { would be simpler. > + if (!notify[3]) > + return 0; > + udelay(10); > + } You might as well do a udelay(1) here. The additional cost will be negligible, and it will reduce latency. > + timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms); The maximum latency is now timout_ms + 200usec. That's OK with the current constants, but if someone later changes a constant, the error could become significant. Perhaps that isn't worth bothering about though. > do { > if (!notify[3]) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists