>Do you mean "sufficient" here rather than "efficient"? It's far less
>inefficient than what the code was previously doing, but still...
Yes, I'm gonna send a new fix for the comment patch and
change the subject of the previous patch soc/qman
Thanks,
Karim
On 25 June 2017 at 04:49, Scott Wood <o...@buserror.net> wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:05:56AM +0200, Karim Eshapa wrote:
> > Change the comment for an entry check inside function
> > drain_mr_fqrni() with sleep for sufficient period
> > of time instead of long time proccessor cycles.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Karim Eshapa <karim.esh...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/qman.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/qman.c b/drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/qman.c
> > index 18d391e..636a7d7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/qman.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/fsl/qbman/qman.c
> > @@ -1071,18 +1071,19 @@ static int drain_mr_fqrni(struct qm_portal *p)
> > msg = qm_mr_current(p);
> > if (!msg) {
> > /*
> > - * 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.
> > + * 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 sleep with
> > + * 1 ms would be very efficient, after this period
> > + * we can check if there is something produced.
> > + * 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.
>
> Do you mean "sufficient" here rather than "efficient"? It's far less
> inefficient than what the code was previously doing, but still...
>
> Otherwise, looks good.
>
> -Scott
>
