On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 03:45:43 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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?
Well, I guess you know what a reasonable timeout should be?
> Note that udelay() is a busy loop. Should it fall back to msleep() after
> a while?
If we can't fall back to msleep() at one point, you may as well simply poll
periodically as you did originally.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/
