linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87mvfxpli5.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2016 11:52:34 +0200
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Cc:     Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Shashank Sharma <shashank.sharma@...el.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: use udelay for very short delays

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org> wrote:
>> > Even on fast systems a 2 microsecond delay is most likely more efficient
>> > as a busy-wait loop. The overhead of a hrtimer does not seem warranted -
>> > change this to a udelay(2).
>> 
>> Similar concerns as in [1]. We don't need the accuracy of udelay() here,
>> so this boils down to which is the better use of CPU. We could probably
>> relax the max delay more if that was helpful. But I'm not immediately
>> sold on "is most likely more efficient" which sounds like a gut feeling.
>> 
>> I'm sorry it's not clear in my other reply that I do appreciate
>> addressing incorrect/silly use of usleep_range(); I'm just not (yet)
>> convinced udelay() is the answer.
>
> if the delay is not critical and all that is needed 
> is an assurance that it is greater than X us then 
> usleep_range is fine with a relaxed limit. 
> So from what you wrote my patch proposal is wrong - the
> udelay() is not the way to got.
> My intent is to get rid of very small usleep_range() cases
> so if usleep_range(20,50) causes no issues with this driver
> and does not induce any performance penalty then that would 
> be the way to go I think.

Okay, so I looked at the code, and I looked at our spec, and I looked at
the MIPI D-PHY spec, and I cried a little.

Long story short, I think usleep_range(10, 50) will be fine.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center