On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 7:13 PM Jiri Kosina <ji...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 May 2020, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > > > > > > usbhid tries to give the device 50 milliseconds to drain its
> > > > > > > queues
> > > > > > > when opening the device, but does it naively by simply sleeping
> > > > > > > in open
> > > > > > > handler, which slows down device probing (and thus may affect
> > > > > > > overall
> > > > > > > boot time).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However we do not need to sleep as we can instead mark a point of
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > in the future when we should start processing the events.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <drink...@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/hid/usbhid/hid-core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
> > > > > > > drivers/hid/usbhid/usbhid.h | 1 +
> > > > > > > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hid-core.c
> > > > > > > b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hid-core.c
> > > > > > > index c7bc9db5b192..e69992e945b2 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hid-core.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hid-core.c
> > > > > > > @@ -95,6 +95,19 @@ static int hid_start_in(struct hid_device *hid)
> > > > > > > set_bit(HID_NO_BANDWIDTH,
> > > > > > > &usbhid->iofl);
> > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > clear_bit(HID_NO_BANDWIDTH,
> > > > > > > &usbhid->iofl);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (test_and_clear_bit(HID_RESUME_RUNNING,
> > > > > > > + &usbhid->iofl)) {
> > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > + * In case events are generated
> > > > > > > while nobody was
> > > > > > > + * listening, some are released
> > > > > > > when the device
> > > > > > > + * is re-opened. Wait 50 msec for
> > > > > > > the queue to
> > > > > > > + * empty before allowing events
> > > > > > > to go through
> > > > > > > + * hid.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + usbhid->input_start_time =
> > > > > > > jiffies +
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > msecs_to_jiffies(50);
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&usbhid->lock, flags);
> > > > > > > @@ -280,7 +293,8 @@ static void hid_irq_in(struct urb *urb)
> > > > > > > if (!test_bit(HID_OPENED, &usbhid->iofl))
> > > > > > > break;
> > > > > > > usbhid_mark_busy(usbhid);
> > > > > > > - if (!test_bit(HID_RESUME_RUNNING, &usbhid->iofl))
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > + if (!test_bit(HID_RESUME_RUNNING, &usbhid->iofl)
> > > > > > > &&
> > > > > > > + time_after(jiffies,
> > > > > > > usbhid->input_start_time)) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are we worried about jiffies overflowing (32-bit@1000Hz is "only"
> > > > > > 49.7 days...)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > time_after() is overflow-safe. That is why it is used and jiffies is
> > > > > not compared directly.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it is overflow safe, but still can not measure more than 50 days,
> > > > so if you have a device open for 50+ days there will be a 50msec gap
> > > > where it may lose events.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Or you could explicitly use 64-bit jiffies.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Jiri, Benjamin, do you have preference between jiffies64 and ktime_t? I
> > guess jiffies64 is a tiny bit less expensive.
>
> If I would be writing the code, I'd use ktime_t, because I personally like
> that abstraction more :) But either variant works for me.
I don't have a strong opinion on either variant. Feel free to use
whatever you like the most.
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs
>
