Hi Rafael,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> @@ -2218,10 +2227,13 @@ int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev)
>>>>
>>>> dev_dbg(dev, "adding to PM domain %s\n", pd->name);
>>>>
>>>> - while (1) {
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < GENPD_RETRIES; i++) {
>>>> ret = pm_genpd_add_device(pd, dev);
>>>> if (ret != -EAGAIN)
>>>> break;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (i > GENPD_RETRIES / 2)
>>>> + udelay(GENPD_DELAY_US);
>>>
>>> In this execution path, we retry when getting -EAGAIN while believing
>>> the reason to the error are only *temporary* as we are soon waiting
>>> for all devices in the genpd to be system PM resumed. At least that's
>>> my understanding to why we want to deal with -EAGAIN here, but I might
>>> be wrong.
>>>
>>> In this regards, I wonder whether it could be better to re-try only a
>>> few times but with a far longer interval time than a couple us. What
>>> do you think?
>>
>> That's indeed viable. I have no idea for how long this temporary state can
>> extend.
>
> A usual approach to this kind of thing is to use exponential fallback
> where you increase the delay twice with respect to the previous one
> every time.
Right, but when do you give up?
Note that udelay() is a busy loop. Should it fall back to msleep() after
a while?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
