[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150718152835.GF17961@lunn.ch>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:28:35 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
David <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel <kernel@...oirfairelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: sleep in _mv88e6xxx_stats_wait
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 11:23:19AM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> ----- On Jul 18, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Andrew Lunn andrew@...n.ch wrote:
>
> >> Good point. The timeout is most definitely quite large and for sure on
> >> the safe side. It might make sense to add some statistics gathering to
> >> see how long the maximum observed delay actually is.
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > Statistics are something which can be used a lot, i bursts and
> > interactivily. ATU, VTU etc, are much less often used. So different
> > delays might be justified.
> >
> > I agree about doing some statistics gathering to determine actual
> > delays needed.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> What do you think about something like this?
Hi Vivien
Lets get some actually statistics first. I would suggest for testing
you make _mv88e6xxx_wait() a busy loop and time how long it actually
takes for different busy bits to clear. We should also test it on
different families.
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists