>On 5/4/2017 5:07 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 06:58 +0200, Karim Eshapa wrote: >>> + stop = jiffies + 10000; >>> + /* >>> + * if MR was full and h/w had other FQRNI entries to produce, we >>> + * need to allow it time to produce those entries once the >>> + * existing entries are consumed. A worst-case situation >>> + * (fully-loaded system) means h/w sequencers may have to do 3-4 >>> + * other things before servicing the portal's MR pump, each of >>> + * which (if slow) may take ~50 qman cycles (which is ~200 >>> + * processor cycles). So rounding up and then multiplying this >>> + * worst-case estimate by a factor of 10, just to be >>> + * ultra-paranoid, goes as high as 10,000 cycles. NB, we consume >>> + * one entry at a time, so h/w has an opportunity to produce new >>> + * entries well before the ring has been fully consumed, so >>> + * we're being *really* paranoid here. >>> + */ >> OK, upon reading this more closely it seems the intent was to delay for >> 10,000 >> *processor cycles* and somehow that got turned into 10,000 jiffies (which is >> 40 seconds at the default Hz!). We could just replace this whole thing with >> msleep(1) and still be far more paranoid than was originally intended. >> >> Claudiu and Roy, any comments? >Yes the timing here is certainly off, the code changed a few times since >the comment was originally written. >An msleep(1) seems reasonable here to me.
If the previous patch with msleep(1) is OK. can I send a patch to slightly change the comments. Thanks, Karim
